Brown, J.
Logan A. Owsley appeals the Marion Superior Court’s dismissal of his verified petition to open estate and the denial of his motion to correct error. Logan raises one issue which we revise and restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the estate proceeding. We affirm.
….
The issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the estate. Logan argues that the reasoning of Love v. Bolinger, 927 F. Supp. 1131 (S.D. Ind. 1996), which was cited by the trial court, is not instructive because the alleged conspiracy to cover up his father’s death violated his right to bring a wrongful death claim. He argues that civil rights claims for conspiracy and denial of access to courts brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 are the property of a decedent’s estate and must be brought in federal court by the estate, rather than by a relative individually. Logan requests that we should reverse the trial court and reinstate him as personal representative of his father’s estate for the sole purpose of pursuing the federal civil rights action in the federal lawsuit.
….
The Marion Superior Court’s November 1, 2016 order in Cause No. 7407 states that the claim for a violation of the decedent’s constitutional rights was not an asset of the Estate subject to administration and cites Love v. Bolinger, 927 F. Supp. 1131, 1136 (S.D. Ind. 1996)…. The court clarified: “We do not hold that cover-up of a wrongful death is without civil or criminal effect; rather, we hold that ‘the victims of a cover-up are the decedent’s survivors, not the decedent himself.’” Id. (quoting Gibson, 910 F.2d at 1523 (citing Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205, 1264 (7th Cir. 1984)). The court held that “to the extent that plaintiffs allege that, by covering up the circumstances of Joseph Love’s death, Manders and Ward violated Joseph Love’s Constitutional rights, the Motion to Dismiss is granted.” Id.
While Logan argues that Love is distinguishable from this case because the plaintiffs in Love did not allege that they were prevented from filing a wrongful death suit under state law and he did allege such a claim in his amended complaint, he does not point to a claim in his amended complaint based upon an alleged violation of Cary’s rights which occurred prior to his death. His amended complaint in the federal lawsuit alleged that there was a rush to classify the death as a suicide, contamination and destruction of evidence, and a cover-up, all of which were alleged to have occurred after Cary’s death. Based upon Love, we cannot say that the Marion Superior Court erred in concluding that the claim being pursued in federal court was not an asset or property of the Estate and, accordingly, in dismissing the matter. [Footnote omitted.]
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order.
Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.