Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 34-58-1-2 (2026)
Frivolous, nonjudiciable, or moot claims barred; dismissal of claims by a person falsely claiming indigent status
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 2. (a) A court shall review a complaint or petition filed by an offender and shall determine if the claim may proceed. A claim may not proceed if the court determines that the claim:
(1) is frivolous;
(2) is not a claim upon which relief may be granted; or
(3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from liability for such relief.
(b) A claim is frivolous under subsection (a)(1) if the claim:
(1) is made primarily to harass a person; or
(2) lacks an arguable basis either in:
(A) law; or
(B) fact.
(c) A court shall dismiss a complaint or petition if:
(1) the offender who filed the complaint or petition received leave to prosecute the action as an indigent person; and
(2) the court determines that the offender misrepresented the offender's claim not to have sufficient funds to prosecute the action.
As added by P.L.80-2004, SEC.6.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: Smith v. Huckins, 850 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
Smith v. Huckins, 850 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Smith, an inmate at Westville Correctional Center, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his complaint pursuant to Indiana Code § 34-58-1-2, which provides a screening procedure for offender litigation.”
Smith v. Indiana Dep't of Corr., 853 N.E.2d 127 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Smith, an inmate at the Maximum Control Facility at Westville Correctional Center, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint pursuant to Indiana Code § 34-58-2-1, which provides that if an offender has filed at least three civil actions in which a state court has…”
Smith v. Donahue, 907 N.E.2d 553 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “See Ind. Code § 34-58-1-2 . In September 2008, the trial court determined that Smith's complaint was frivolous as contemplated by the statute and dismissed it.”
Gersh Zavodnik v. Irene Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259 (Ind. 2014). “” Indiana Code § 34-58-1-2 (2008) (“the Screening Statute”) authorizes a court to review an offender’s claim and bar it from going forward if it is frivolous (that is, made primarily to harass or lacking an arguable basis in law or fact), is not a claim on which relief may be…”
Smith v. Maximum Control Facility, 850 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Smith, an inmate at the Maximum Control Facility at Westville Correctional Center, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his complaint pursuant to Indiana Code § 34-58-1-2, which provides a screening procedure for offender litigation.”
Smith v. Indiana Dep't of Corr., 883 N.E.2d 802 (Ind. 2008). “§ 34-58-1-2. The Three Strikes Law provides: If an offender has filed at least three (3) civil actions in which a state court has dismissed the action or a claim under IC XX-XX-X-X, the offender may not file a new complaint or petition unless a court determines that the offender…”
Kevin Martin v. Hon. Hugh Hunt, 130 N.E.3d 135 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “Indiana Code section 34-58-1-2 states, in relevant part: (a) A court shall review a complaint or petition filed by an offender and shall determine if the claim may proceed.”
Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 853 N.E.2d 478 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Because Smith’s complaint against Wal-Mart is simply an attempt to relitigate his 2001 arson conviction, we conclude that his complaint is frivolous and therefore affirm the trial court’s dismissal pursuant to Indiana Code § 34-58-1-2, which provides a screening procedure for…”
Smith v. Carrasco, 850 N.E.2d 468 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Smith, an inmate at Westville Correctional Center, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his complaint pursuant to Indiana Code § 34-58-1-2, which provides a screening procedure for offender litigation.”
Smith v. McKee, 850 N.E.2d 471 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Smith, an inmate at Westville Correctional Center, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his complaint pursuant to Indiana Code § 34-58-1-2, which provides a screening procedure for offender litigation.”
Peterson v. Lambert, 885 N.E.2d 719 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “The trial court screened the complaint pursuant to Indiana Code section 34-58-1-2 and determined that his claims should not proceed: Although the plaintiff has reiterated several times that the actions of the defendants were “willful and wanton” and “outside the scope of their…”
Smith v. Indiana Dep't of Corr., 888 N.E.2d 804 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Discussion and Decision 1 Indiana Code section 34-58-1-2 provides that [a] court shall review a complaint or petition filed by an offender and shall determine if the claim may proceed.”
— Ind. Code § 34-58-1-2(a) — 4 cases
Smith v. Carrasco, 850 N.E.2d 468 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Smith, an inmate at Westville Correctional Center, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his complaint pursuant to Indiana Code § 34-58-1-2, which provides a screening procedure for offender litigation.”
Varner v. Indiana Parole Bd., 905 N.E.2d 493 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
Dominic A. Lowe v. Brian Smith, the Warden of the Putnamville Corr. Facility (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
Scarpinato v. Galipeau (N.D. Ind. 2025).
— Ind. Code § 34-58-1-2(a)(2) — 9 cases
Smith v. McKee, 850 N.E.2d 471 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Smith, an inmate at Westville Correctional Center, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his complaint pursuant to Indiana Code § 34-58-1-2, which provides a screening procedure for offender litigation.”
Guillen v. R.D.C. Mail Clerk, 922 N.E.2d 121 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
Smith v. Huckins, 850 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Smith, an inmate at Westville Correctional Center, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his complaint pursuant to Indiana Code § 34-58-1-2, which provides a screening procedure for offender litigation.”
Anthony Wayne Reed v. Leann White & Darrin Chaney, 103 N.E.3d 657 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
Higgason v. Indiana Dep't of Corr., 883 N.E.2d 814 (Ind. 2008).
— Ind. Code § 34-58-1-2(b) — 1 case
Dolen Glenn v. Dick Brown & Indiana Dep't of Corr. (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
— Ind. Code § 34-58-1-2(b)(F) — 1 case
Smith v. Wrigley, 908 N.E.2d 354 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.