Ind. Code » Title 34
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 34-58-1-3 (2026)

Order if claim barred

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 3. If a court determines that a claim may not proceed under section 2 of this chapter, the court shall enter an order:

(1) explaining why the claim may not proceed; and

(2) stating whether there are any remaining claims in the complaint or petition that may proceed.

As added by P.L.80-2004, SEC.6.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 2006–2019 · leading case: Smith v. Indiana Dep't of Corr., 888 N.E.2d 804 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Indiana Dep't of Corr., 888 N.E.2d 804 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 8× “However, Indiana Code section 34-58-1-3 says an order dismissing a claim at the screening stage for offender litigation must state whether there are any remaining claims in the complaint that may proceed.”
Smith v. Donahue, 907 N.E.2d 553 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “" Ind.Code § 34-58-1-3. In reviewing the dismissal of an offender's claim, complaint, or dismissal pursuant to Indiana Code section 34-58-1-2, we employ a de novo standard of review.”
Smith v. Indiana Dep't of Corr., 853 N.E.2d 127 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “Ind.Code § 34-58-1-3. In addition, Indiana Code § 34-58-2-1 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 34-58-1-2, the offender may not file a new complaint or petition unless a court…”
Smith v. Huckins, 850 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “With this in mind, the trial court conducted the review provided for in Indiana Code § $4-58-1-2 and issued an order pursuant to Indiana Code § 34-58-1-3 that Smith's complaint did not state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and Smith now appeals that order.”
Smith v. Maximum Control Facility, 850 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 34-58-1-3. In reviewing the dismissal of an offender's claim, complaint, or dismissal pursuant to Indiana Code § 34-58-1-2, we employ a de novo standard of review.”
Smith v. McKee, 850 N.E.2d 471 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Contrary to Smith's argument, the trial court was in compliance with Indiana Code § 34-58-1-3. Smith next argues that assuming the trial court dismissed his complaint because it failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, which turned out to be the case, his…”
Anthony Wayne Reed v. Leann White & Darrin Chaney, 103 N.E.3d 657 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “By order dated July 5, we dismissed that appeal, but remanded to the trial court with instructions to docket the complaint, which the court had not done, and to otherwise comply with Indiana Code Section 34-58-1-3 in the event the court dismissed the complaint.”
Taylor v. Finnan, 955 N.E.2d 785 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Id. If the court determines that a claim may not proceed, the court must enter an order explaining why it cannot proceed and stating whether there are any remaining claims that may proceed.”
Larry A. Jones v. John P. Brinson (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Ind. Code § 34-58-1-3 . We review a dismissal under Section 34-58-1-2 de novo.”
D.S. II v. M.C. (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “” I.C. § 34-58-1-3. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1602-PO-246 | May 25, 2016 Page 4 of 5 Assistant of the facility within twenty working days from the event triggering the concern.”
Michael D. Hickingbottom v. Robert E. Carter, Jr., Comm'r of the Indiana Dep't of Corr., Mark Sevier, Warden of Westville Corr. Facility, Troy Cambe (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “” Ind. Code § 34-58-1-3 . [5] Hickingbottom argues that the trial court erred when it dismissed his complaint.”
Ricky Outlaw v. Indiana Dept. of Corr., Keith Butts, Rick Talley, Bruce Lemon, & Alan Finnan (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “He points to Indiana Code section 34-58-1-3, which requires an order: “(1) explaining why the claim may not proceed; and (2) stating whether there are any remaining claims in the complaint or petition that may proceed” if a court determines that a claim may not proceed under…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.