Vaidik, J.
Case Summary
Eric J. Mapes brought a complaint against Carroll County and the Carroll County Treasurer alleging illegal garnishment of his federal disability income. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to provide a tort-claim notice, and Mapes now appeals that dismissal. We affirm. Additionally, due to Mapes’s persistent pattern of abusive litigation practices—including disregarding warnings from this Court and our Supreme Court that continuing such practices could result in filing restrictions—we remand to the trial court with instructions to impose any conditions or restrictions on Mapes’s filings it deems appropriate to prevent future abusive litigation.
….
II. Mapes’s persistent abuse of the judicial process and disregard for prior warnings warrant filing restrictions at the trial-court level
Given Mapes’s history of excessive litigation and abuse of the judicial process, the County asks us to remand for the trial court to impose filing restrictions at the trial level. As we found in our July 17 order, Mapes is “a prolific, abusive litigant whose numerous filings have been a drain on judicial resources.” His abuse includes bringing frivolous claims and raising the same issue in multiple cases, even after the issue has already been decided adversely to him. When an adverse decision or order is issued, Mapes often sues the judge or court who issued it. (Or, as in this case, requests recusal or judicial disqualification of the judge who signed the order.) In each of his cases, Mapes submits a plethora of filings that are “repetitive, immaterial, or otherwise abusive of the judicial process” and often include impermissible attempts to make additional arguments on the merits under the guise of motions practice. And for years, Mapes has been abusive in his interactions with Clerk’s Office staff. Remarkably, all of this has occurred despite explicit warnings to Mapes from our Supreme Court and this Court that continuing such conduct could result in restrictions on his filings and communications with Clerk staff.
Mapes’s “right of access to the courts is not a license to engage in such conduct with impunity.” Mapes, 201 N.E.3d at 1170. “There is no right to engage in abusive litigation, and the state has a legitimate interest in the preservation of valuable judicial and administrative resources.” Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 264 (Ind. 2014). Accordingly, “[t]he courts of this state, after due consideration of an abusive litigant’s entire history, may fashion and impose reasonable conditions and restrictions . . . on the litigant’s ability to commence or continue actions in this state that are tailored to the litigant’s particular abusive practices.” Id. at 266.
While we already imposed conditions on any future appeals by Mapes, we agree with the County that restrictions at the trial-court level are also warranted to prevent further abusive litigation. We therefore remand to the trial court with instructions to consider the specific abusive conduct by Mapes and impose any conditions or restrictions it deems appropriate to thwart such conduct. See Holland v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 171 N.E.3d 684, 690 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (“We . . . remand to the trial court to determine, after due consideration of Holland’s history of abuse, which of the restrictions authorized by our Supreme Court in Zavodnik . . . should be imposed against Holland.”), reh’g denied, trans. denied; see also Holland v. Ind. Univ., 254 N.E.3d 1110, 1114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (upholding filing restrictions imposed by trial court on remand), trans. denied.
We recognize that while remand is to the Tippecanoe Superior Court given the change of venue, the Carroll County court system is likely more in need of restrictions on Mapes’s filings—Mapes lives in Carroll County and has filed most of his state-court litigation there. Under Zavodnik, the Carroll County courts (and any other trial courts in the state) have the authority to impose reasonable restrictions on an abusive litigant. See 17 N.E.3d at 265-66 (sampling cases where appellate courts affirmed sanctions and restrictions placed on abusive litigants by trial courts). [Footnote omitted.] We therefore advise the Carroll County courts that they may also implement any conditions or restrictions they deem necessary given Mapes’s history of abusive litigation.
Affirmed and remanded.
Tavitas, J., and Felix, J., concur.