Preview:

APPELLANT Larriante Sumbry Michigan City, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Steve Carter Attorney General of Indiana

Frances H. Barrow Deputy Attorney General ______________________________________________________________________________

In the Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________ No. 46S04-0511-CV-511

LARRIANTE SUMBRY, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. WILLIAM J. BOKLUND, Appellee (Defendant below). _________________________________ Appeal from the LaPorte Superior Court, No. 46D04-0303-CT-110, The Honorable Lizbeth W. Pease, Special Judge _________________________________ On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 46A04-0404-CV-237 _________________________________ November 3, 2005 Per Curiam.

Larriante Sumbry filed a civil tort action against LaPorte Superior Court Judge William Boklund. The trial court granted Boklund's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, but declined to find that Sumbry's complaint was "frivolous,

unreasonable or groundless" within the meaning of Indiana Code section 35-50-6-5(a)(4) (Supp. 2004). The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished decision, Sumbry v. Boklund, No. 46A04-0404-CV-237 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2005), and Sumbry petitioned to transfer jurisdiction of the case to this Court. We grant transfer to address whether his complaint was frivolous, unreasonable or groundless. See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A) (stating that "[u]pon the grant of transfer, the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction over the appeal and all issues as if originally filed in the Supreme Court."). We hold that it was unreasonable.

Background & Discussion

Sumbry is an inmate at the state prison in Michigan City. His direct appeals and postconviction proceedings with respect to his convictions have been resolved against him. See Sumbry v. Miscellaneous Docket Sheet for Year 2003, 811 N.E.2d 457, 459 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. In the past several years, Sumbry has initiated numerous civil proceedings against various judges, magistrates, attorneys, and other governmental officials. Some of those proceedings were filed in Judge Boklund's court. Sumbry did not agree with some of Boklund's rulings, and initiated appeals from them. See, e.g., Sumbry v. Pera, 795 N.E.2d 470 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied (Ind. 2004). Sumbry then filed this action directly against Boklund, alleging the judge had miscalculated the $6 partial filing fee Sumbry was required to pay, should have appointed free counsel for Sumbry in the civil actions, and had not timely ruled on various matters. Sumbry sought money damages. Boklund moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, see Trial Rule 12(B)(6), accurately noting that these matters pertain to discretionary judicial actions, all of which are covered by the doctrine of judicial immunity. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss and the Court of Appeals

2

affirmed. 58(A)(2).

We summarily affirm that portion of the Memorandum Decision. See App. R.

Boklund also moved the trial court to certify Sumbry's action as "frivolous, unreasonable or groundless" under Indiana Code section 35-50-6-5(a)(4). The trial court's order states that the court found "no merit" to Sumbry's complaint, but the court "refuse[d] to certify the case" under the statute. (Appellee's Br. at 14 (containing copy of trial court's order).) Boklund raised the issue in his appellate brief, but the Court of Appeals affirmed, "declin[ing] to revisit the trial court's determination." Slip op. at 3 n.3.

The statute provides that an inmate may be deprived of earned credit time "[i]f a court determines that a civil claim brought by the person in a state or administrative court is frivolous, unreasonable or groundless." I.C.

Download Larriante Sumbry v. William Boklund.pdf

Indiana Law