IN THE
Court of Appeals of Indiana
FILED
John O. Study, Jul 23 2026, 9:43 am
Appellant CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
v.
Boone County Sheriff’s Office and Anthony Harris,
Appellees
July 23, 2026
Court of Appeals Case No.
26A-CT-78
Appeal from the Putnam Circuit Court
The Honorable Matthew L. Headley, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
67C01-2508-CT-27
Opinion by Judge Brown
Judges Bailey and Weissmann concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 26A-CT-78 July 23, 2026 Page 1 of 8
Brown, Judge.
[1] John O. Study, pro se, appeals the Putnam Circuit Court’s December 12, 2025
order to transfer venue. We reverse and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On August 4, 2025, Study filed a complaint against Anthony Harris as the
Sheriff of Boone County and the Boone County Sheriff’s Office (together,
“Defendants”) in the Putnam Circuit Court under cause number 67C01-2508-CT-27 (“Cause No. 27”). He also filed a summons for each Defendant and
directions to the clerk of the Putnam Circuit Court to serve the complaint and a
summons upon each Defendant. On September 22, 2025, the court entered an
order waiving Study’s filing fee and directing the clerk to cause service of the
complaint and summons to be made upon Defendants. On October 17, 2025,
Study filed a motion inquiring about the status of the court’s order directing the
clerk to cause service upon Defendants. An entry on October 21, 2025, in the
chronological case summary states: “Clerk Issues Copy of Complaint, Petition
& Summons to Attorney General’s Civil Division.” Appellant’s Appendix
Volume II at 3.
[3] On November 4, 2025, Study filed an “Emergency - ‘Verified Motion’” asking
why service had been made upon the Indiana Attorney General rather than
upon Defendants as set forth in the summonses which he had provided to the
clerk. Id. at 42. On November 10, 2025, the court issued an order which
“Denied” Study’s emergency motion. Id. at 46. On December 9, 2025, Study
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 26A-CT-78 July 23, 2026 Page 2 of 8
filed an objection to service upon the Indiana Attorney General and requested
that proper service be made upon Defendants. Study’s objection stated:
I sent a letter to the Indiana Attorney General’s Office stating that
this Court had in fact deemed the Indiana Attorney General as the
appropriate office to serve, which in turn, they provided the
following statement in a letter dated December 2, 2025:
“This office is not authorized, either by statute or by express
consent, to accept service of process upon this Defendant.
The Boone County Sheriff is not a state agency or entity, and
this matter does not appear to involve the State of Indiana.”
Id. at 49.
[4] On December 12, 2025, the Putnam Circuit Court issued an order providing:
ORDER TO
TRANSFER TO PROPER VENUE
Comes now the court, upon review of [Study’s] complaint, notes
that his complaint is against the Boone County Sheriff and the
Boone County Sheriff’s department. Pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 75
and 12, court transfers cause to Boone County Clerk for proper
court assignment.
Id. at 52.
[5] On December 18, 2025, Study filed a motion for reconsideration “objecting to
the Court’s sua sponte decision to Change the Preferred-Venue from [his]
County of where he is a resident currently and prior to incarceration.” Id. at 53.
Study cited Ind. Trial Rule 75(A)(5) and Lake Holiday Conservancy v. Davison,
808 N.E.2d 119 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). He stated, “I am, and was, since 2006, a
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 26A-CT-78 July 23, 2026 Page 3 of 8
resident of Putnam County, where bringing an action against a governmental
organization, the ‘Boone County Sheriff’ and his ‘Office’, is appropriate.” Id. at
54. On January 9, 2026, Study filed a notice of appeal. 1
Discussion
[6] Before addressing Study’s arguments, we note that Defendants have not filed an
appellees’ brief. When an appellee does not submit a brief, we may reverse if
the appellant establishes prima facie error. Bixler v. Delano, 185 N.E.3d 875,
877-878 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). Prima facie is defined as “at first sight, on first
appearance, or on the face of it.” Id. (quoting Graziani v. D & R Const., 39
N.E.3d 688, 690 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)).
[7] Study argues that the Putnam Circuit Court erred in transferring his case to
Boone County. He states: “It is my belief that Putnam County is the ‘Preferred
Venue’ as I was a resident in 2006 through 2007 until my arrest, and have
continuously resided in Putnam County since January 2023.” Appellant’s Brief
1
Cause number 06C01-2512-CT-2480 (“Cause No. 2480”) was opened in the Boone Circuit Court. An entry
in the chronological case summary for Cause No. 2480 on December 18, 2025, states, “This case was
received from Putnam County,” and an order entered on January 13, 2026, states:
The Court receives and reviews Notice Of Appeal filed on January 9, 2026, under Cause No.
26A-CT-00078, appealing Order To Transfer to Proper Venue dated December 12, 2025,
under [Cause No. 27]. The Court in Boone County takes no action on the transferred case
due to the pending appeal.
January 13, 2026 Order, Cause No. 2480. Study’s notice of appeal lists both Cause No. 27 and Cause No.
2480 in its caption and specifies the Putnam Circuit Court’s December 12, 2025 order as the order being
appealed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 26A-CT-78 July 23, 2026 Page 4 of 8
at 8. He further argues that Defendants did not file a request to dismiss under
Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(3) and that no service of process was accomplished.
[8] In Strozewski v. Strozewski, this Court stated:
Indiana Trial Rule 75 provides that, “[a]ny case may be venued,
commenced and decided in any court in any county.” Ind. Trial
Rule 75(A). However, if a party files a pleading or a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Trial Rule 12(B)(3),[ 2] the trial court shall
order the case transferred to a county or court selected by the
party filing such motion or pleading if the trial court determines
that the county or court where the action was filed does not meet
preferred venue requirements or is not authorized to decide the
case and that the court or county selected has preferred venue
and is authorized to decide the case. T.R. 75(A). The trial rule
lists several criteria under which preferred venue can lie. T.R.
75(A)(1)-(10). The rule does not create a priority among these
subsections establishing preferred venue. Muneer v. Muneer, 951
N.E.2d 241, 243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Preferred venue may lie
in more than one county, and if an action is filed in a county of
preferred venue, change of venue cannot be granted. Id.
36 N.E.3d 497, 500 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
[9] Ind. Trial Rule 75(A) provides:
Preferred venue lies in:
(1) the county where the greater percentage of individual
defendants included in the complaint resides, or, if there is no
2
Ind. Trial Rule 12(B) provides, “the following defenses may be made by motion: . . . (3) Incorrect venue
under Trial Rule 75, or any statutory provision. The disposition of this motion shall be consistent with Trial
Rule 75[.]”
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 26A-CT-78 July 23, 2026 Page 5 of 8
such greater percentage, the place where any individual
defendant so named resides; or
*****
(5) the county where either one or more individual plaintiffs
reside, the principal office of a governmental organization is
located, or the office of a governmental organization to
which the claim relates or out of which the claim arose is
located, if one or more governmental organizations are
included as defendants in the complaint[.]
[10] Here, Defendants did not file a pleading or a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Trial Rule 12(B)(3). Indeed, the record appears to show that, despite Study’s
requests, the clerk of the Putnam Circuit Court did not cause service of the
complaint and summonses submitted by Study to be made upon Defendants.
Further, the Boone County Sheriff’s Office, a governmental organization, is
included as a defendant in Study’s complaint, and Study stated, “I am, and
was, since 2006, a resident of Putnam County.” Appellant’s Appendix Volume
II at 54. Under Ind. Trial Rule 75(A)(5), Putnam County constitutes a county
of preferred venue. See Lake Holiday Conservancy v. Davison, 808 N.E.2d 119,
122 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (“On its face, this subsection [Ind. Trial Rule 75(A)(5)]
establishes that Marion County is a preferred venue for this cause of action. It
provides for three possible venues whenever a governmental organization is
named as a defendant in a complaint: an individual plaintiff’s county of
residence, or the county where the governmental organization’s principal office
is located, or if a claim relates to something arising at a specific, non-principal
office of a governmental organization, then the county where that office is
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 26A-CT-78 July 23, 2026 Page 6 of 8
located. Lake Holiday, a governmental organization, is included as a defendant
in Davison’s complaint; Davison is an individual plaintiff and resides in Marion
County. Marion County is a preferred venue under the plain language of Rule
75(A)(5).”). Although preferred venue may lie in more than one county, if an
action is filed in a county of preferred venue, change of venue cannot be
granted. See Strozewski, 36 N.E.3d at 500 (plaintiff filed action in a county of
preferred venue and thus denial of defendant’s motion to transfer venue was
proper); see also In re Adoption of E.S.J., 219 N.E.3d 780, 783 (Ind. Ct. App.
2023) (where appellants filed petition in a county of preferred venue, change of
venue may not be granted).
[11] Based on the record, we conclude that Study has demonstrated prima facie
error. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Putnam Circuit Court’s
December 12, 2025 order transferring venue to Boone County and remand for
further proceedings, including, if not already completed, service of the
complaint and a summons upon Defendants.
[12] Reversed and remanded.
Bailey, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.
APPELLANT PRO SE
John O. Study
Greencastle, Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 26A-CT-78 July 23, 2026 Page 7 of 8 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES
Christopher D. Cody
Travelers Staff Counsel Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 26A-CT-78 July 23, 2026 Page 8 of 8