Timothy Marcus Mayberry, Appellant-Plaintiff v. August Mack Environmental, Inc., et al., Appellees-Defendants (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Timothy Marcus Mayberry appeals from the Trial Rule 12(B)(6) dismissal of his complaint against August Mack Environmental Inc. (August Mack) and its employee, Bryce Comp (collectively, Defendants). Finding Mayberry's complaint alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for relief, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mayberry is currently an inmate at the Indiana State Prison (ISP). On December 12, 2025, August Mack was testing the water in the prison, and Comp entered Mayberry's cell to collect a sample. While doing so, Comp removed a bag of ice from Mayberry's sink and set it on the floor. By the time Comp finished collecting the sample, the ice had melted, which Mayberry claims caused water to damage items of personal property stored in his cell.

[3] On June 2, 2026, Mayberry filed a complaint against Defendants alleging, in part:

7. That, on December 12th, 2025, COMP, while acting on behalf of AUGUST MACK, entered into my living space at ISP and placed a bag full of ice on the floor next to my personal property.

8. That, the bag of ice was sitting on the floor for an undisclosed amount of time.

9. That, upon learning that someone was inside my living space I went to investigate.

10. That, upon arriving at [my cell], ․ I noticed an ISP staff member standing at the entry to [the cell] and another person, who I later learned was COMP, inside of [the cell] at the sink, with the bag of ice on the floor next to him.

11. That, I noticed the bag of ice was melting and leaking water towards my personal property underneath the bed and next to the bag of ice.

12. That, I advised COMP that the bag of ice was melting and leaking water and damaging my personal property.

13. That, COMP pompously disregarded my pleas for him to move the bag of ice.

14. That, COMP rudely refused to identify himself, and despite being aware that the bag of ice was leaking water and damaging my personal property he took no action to mitigate the damage that had already occurred or to prevent further damage from occurring.

15. That, after COMP left [my cell], I discovered that the water from the bag of ice had leaked under the bed and damaged or destroyed all of my personal property that was stored under the bed.

16. That, the damages sustained by me were proximately caused by COMP's intentional or negligent acts or omissions as described herein without any contributing factors on my part.

17. That, it will take no less than $2,000.00 to compensate me for the property damage I incurred solely as a result of AUGUST MACK (under respondeat superior) or COMP's acts or omissions.

Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 7-8. In his request for relief, Mayberry asked for “compensatory and treble damages ․ not less than $6,000.00.” Id. at 8.

[4] On June 30, Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6). They argued the complaint gave them “no way ․ to meaningly [sic] respond to such vague allegations or prepare in any way for litigation ․” Id. at 21. The trial court summarily granted Defendants’ motion on August 3 and dismissed Mayberry's complaint with prejudice. Mayberry now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] We review an order of dismissal under Trial Rule 12(B)(6) de novo, giving no deference to the trial court's decision. WEOC, Inc. v. Niebauer, 226 N.E.3d 771, 774 (Ind. 2024). A 12(B)(6) motion “tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint: that is, whether the allegations in the complaint establish any set of circumstances under which a plaintiff would be entitled to relief.” Safeco Ins. Co. of Ind. v. Blue Sky Innovation Grp., Inc., 230 N.E.3d 898, 901 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Trail v. Boys & Girls Clubs of Nw. Ind., 845 N.E.2d 130, 134 (Ind. 2006)), reh'g denied. In reviewing the challenged complaint, we take the facts alleged as true and construe them in the plaintiff's favor. Kelly v. Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 260 N.E.3d 934, 937-38 (Ind. 2025). Dismissal is appropriate only “when it is ‘apparent that the facts alleged in the challenged pleading are incapable of supporting relief under any set of circumstances.’ ” Safeco Ins. Co. of Ind., 230 N.E.3d at 902 (quoting McQueen v. Fayette Cnty. Sch. Corp., 711 N.E.2d 62, 65 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied).

[6] We note that Defendants did not participate in this appeal. In such a case, we will not develop an argument on the appellees’ behalf and “will reverse the trial court's judgment if the appellant's brief presents a case of prima facie error.” Front Row Motors, LLC v. Jones, 5 N.E.3d 753, 758 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065, 1068 (Ind. 2006)). In this context, prima facie error means error “at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Id. (quoting Trinity Homes, 848 N.E.2d at 1068).

[7] In their memorandum supporting the motion to dismiss, Defendants argued Mayberry's complaint didn't satisfy the notice pleading standard provided by Indiana Trial Rule 8(a), which requires that a pleading contain: “(1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (2) a demand for relief to which the pleader deems entitled.” According to Defendants, Mayberry's complaint fell short of this standard because it did not allege a specific legal theory entitling Mayberry to relief. But “although highly desirable, a precise legal theory in a pleading ․ is not required.” ResCare Health Servs., Inc. v. Ind. Fam. & Soc. Servs. Admin. – Off. of Medicaid Pol'y & Plan., 184 N.E.3d 1147, 1153 (Ind. 2022) (quoting Bayer Corp. v. Leach, 147 N.E.3d 313, 315 (Ind. 2020)) (internal quotation marks omitted). All a plaintiff must do to sufficiently state a claim is “plead the operative facts necessary to set forth an actionable claim.” Id. (quoting Trail, 845 N.E.2d at 135). And a complaint is generally sufficient if it “put[s] a reasonable person on notice as to why a plaintiff sues.” Shields v. Taylor, 976 N.E.2d 1237, 1245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

[8] Here, the complaint alleges that Comp, while acting as an employee of August Mack, placed a bag of ice on the floor of Mayberry's cell. That ice then melted, causing water damage to Mayberry's personal property valued at around $2,000. This short and plain statement sufficiently notified Defendants of the operative facts involved in the litigation and of the relief Mayberry sought. Though Mayberry does not precisely allege a theory of recovery, “[o]ther means less drastic than dismissal of the action can be used to clarify the theory and basis for the cause of action.”¹ Graves v. Kovacs, 990 N.E.2d 972, 977 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting State v. Rankin, 294 N.E.2d 604, 606 (Ind. 1973)). Moreover, considering the alleged facts in the light most favorable to Mayberry, we can't say there aren't any circumstances under which Mayberry would be entitled to relief. Accordingly, Mayberry has made a prima facie showing that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint.²

Conclusion

[9] For these reasons, we reverse the trial court's order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision.

[10] Reversed and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   These less drastic means include, among others, Indiana's broad discovery rules, a motion for a more definite statement under Trial Rule 12(E), and a Trial Rule 16(A) pre-trial conference.

2.   Because we find that Mayberry's complaint survives Rule 12(B)(6) dismissal, we need not address Mayberry's alternative argument that he was denied due process of law when the trial court granted Defendants’ motion before he filed a response. Nor do we address Mayberry's argument regarding his inability to access the Indiana E-filing System while incarcerated, which is not relevant to the issue raised on appeal.

DeBoer, Judge.

Foley, J., and Felix, J., concur.