Kevin L. Martin v. Arvil R. Howe and Charles W. Lahey (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 14 2018, 9:22 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES Kevin L. Martin Jamie C. Woods Carlisle, Indiana Christopher S. Riley Thorne Grodnik, LLP Mishawaka, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kevin L. Martin, November 14, 2018 Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CT-680 v. Appeal from the Sullivan Superior Court Arvil R. Howe and Charles W. The Honorable Hugh R. Hunt, Lahey, Judge Appellees-Defendants. Trial Court Cause No. 77D01-1801-CT-15

Najam, Judge.

Statement of the Case [1] Kevin L. Martin brings this interlocutory appeal from the Sullivan Superior

Court’s order to transfer venue over Martin’s civil complaint against Arvil R.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-680 | November 14, 2018 Page 1 of 4

Howe and Charles W. Lahey to St. Joseph County. Martin raises three issues

for our review, but we consider only the following issue: whether Martin

challenges the Sullivan Superior Court’s order to transfer venue. As we

conclude that Martin has not in fact challenged that order on appeal, and as no

other issues are properly before us in this interlocutory appeal, we dismiss.

Facts and Procedural History [2] Following his conviction and sentence for murder, Martin became an inmate at

the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility in Sullivan County. There, he filed a

civil complaint against Howe and Lahey, his trial and appellate counsel,

respectively, during the criminal proceedings. Howe and Lahey both reside in

St. Joseph County. [3] Howe and Lahey moved to dismiss Martin’s complaint pursuant to Indiana

Trial Rule 12(B)(3) and to transfer venue to St. Joseph County pursuant to Trial

Rule 75(A)(1).1 The trial court granted the motion and denied Martin’s

subsequent motion to reconsider. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [4] Martin brings this interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s order to transfer

venue. “An appeal from an interlocutory order is not allowed unless

specifically authorized . . . .” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Scroghan, 801 N.E.2d 191, 193

1 Trial Rule 75(A)(1) states that preferred venue for an action lies in the county where “the greater percentage of individual defendants included in the complaint reside[.]” There is no question on the record here that that county is St. Joseph County.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-680 | November 14, 2018 Page 2 of 4

(Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. “The authorization is to be strictly

construed, and any attempt to perfect an appeal without such authorization

warrants a dismissal.” Id. Indiana Appellate Rule 14(A)(8) permits

interlocutory appeals of right following a trial court’s order to transfer venue

under Trial Rule 75. However, any issues outside the trial court’s ruling on the

interlocutory order “are unavailable on interlocutory appeal.” Curtis v. State,

948 N.E.2d 1143, 1147 (Ind. 2011); see, e.g., Baca v. RPM, Inc., 941 N.E.2d 547,

548 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). [5] Here, although Martin uses Appellate Rule 14(A)(8) to secure appellate review

over the trial court’s decision to transfer venue, the entirety of his argument on

appeal relates to an entirely different order on discovery issues. Martin only

nominally mentions the order to transfer venue, and even then the entirety of

his comment on that order is to note that he has simply “appeal[ed] the motion

to not lose his right to appeal . . . .” Appellant’s Br. at 10. This is no argument

at all. [6] The only issues that Martin may raise in this interlocutory appeal are issues that

relate to the trial court’s decision to transfer venue. Curtis, 948 N.E.2d at 1147.

But we must conclude that Martin wholly failed to present an argument

supported by cogent reasoning as it relates to that decision. See Ind. Appellate

Rule 46(A)(8). Accordingly, we dismiss Martin’s appeal. [7] Dismissed.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-680 | November 14, 2018 Page 3 of 4 Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-680 | November 14, 2018 Page 4 of 4