Whitley vs. Mears: A High-Stakes Legal Battle Continues in Marion County

Gabriel Whitley takes Ryan Mears to court for committing felonious conduct and violating his constitutional rights

In a contentious legal showdown unfolding in the Marion County Superior Court, plaintiff Gabriel Whitley is taking on Marion County Prosecutor Ryan Mears and the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office in a case that has captured attention for its allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and constitutional violations. Presided over by Judge Joven, the case (Cause No. 49D13-2412-CT-054792) centers on Whitley’s claims that his arrest over a tweet was unlawful, alleging it was orchestrated to aid a friend of Mears in a separate civil case. As of June 9, 2025, Judge Joven has declined to dismiss the case, taking the matter under advisement while requiring both parties to respond further.

Background of the Case

Gabriel Whitley, representing himself pro se, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking $8.4 million in damages for alleged violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights. Whitley claims that his arrest, stemming from a tweet calling for “raiding Abdul-Hakim Shabazz’s house,” was an abuse of power by Mears and the Prosecutor’s Office. He alleges the arrest was designed to influence the outcome of a civil judgment in Shabazz v. Whitley (Cause No. 49D11-2405-CT-022160), a case involving Abdul-Hakim Shabazz, whom Whitley claims is a friend of Mears. Whitley asserts the tweet was protected speech under landmark First Amendment cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and Watts v. United States (1969), and that his arrest lacked probable cause, constituting false arrest, official misconduct, and obstruction of justice.

Whitley’s motion, filed on June 9, 2025, requests three key actions: a default judgment against the defendants for failing to respond timely to the lawsuit, the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Mears for alleged Level 6 felony misconduct, and the denial of any motion to dismiss. Central to his argument is an audio recording purportedly capturing Mears and Shabazz discussing their friendship, which Whitley claims provides evidence of a motive to obstruct justice.

Key Arguments in Court

During the hearing before Judge Joven, both sides presented their cases with intensity. The Prosecutor’s Office, represented by their attorneys, argued for dismissal, citing prosecutorial immunity. They contended that Mears and the office are shielded from civil liability for actions taken in their official capacity, a principle rooted in cases like Imbler v. Pachtman (1976). The defense emphasized that the arrest was lawful and that Whitley’s claims lacked merit, urging the court to dismiss the case outright.

Whitley, undeterred, countered that prosecutorial immunity does not extend to felonious conduct. He argued that Mears’ actions—allegedly orchestrating an unlawful arrest to aid a friend—constituted Level 6 felony official misconduct (IC § 35-44.1-1-1) and obstruction of justice (IC § 35-44.1-2-2). Citing recent Indiana cases, including the Jamey Noel case (2024, Clark County) and the Vincennes Police Chief Dustin Luking case (2024), Whitley pressed for the appointment of a special prosecutor under Indiana Code § 33-39-10-2 to investigate Mears. He highlighted the conflict of interest, noting that the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office cannot impartially investigate its own leader. Whitley also pointed to a 2015 report by Professor Joel Schumm, which documented 22 instances of prosecutorial misconduct in Marion County between 2012 and 2015, to underscore the need for independent oversight.

A pivotal point in Whitley’s argument was the defendants’ failure to respond to the lawsuit for 80 days. Whitley provided evidence of proper service via certified mail on December 9, 2024, with a return receipt confirming the defendants’ receipt on December 17, 2024. Under Indiana Trial Rule 6(C), a response was due by January 6, 2025, but the defendants did not file until March 7, 2025. Whitley argued this delay warranted a default judgment under Trial Rule 55(B), distinguishing his case from Riddle v. Cress (Ind. 2020), where excusable neglect justified relief from default. He asserted that Mears, a sophisticated party, offered no credible excuse for the delay.

Judge Joven’s Ruling

After hearing arguments from both sides, Judge Joven declined to dismiss the case, a significant victory for Whitley. Instead, he took the matter under advisement, requiring both the plaintiff and defendants to submit further responses. This decision keeps Whitley’s claims alive, including his request for a default judgment and the appointment of a special prosecutor. While no final ruling has been issued, Judge Joven’s refusal to dismiss suggests he finds sufficient grounds to consider Whitley’s allegations seriously.

Implications and Next Steps

The Whitley v. Mears case raises critical questions about prosecutorial accountability, free speech, and the limits of immunity. If Whitley’s allegations are substantiated, the case could set a precedent for holding prosecutors liable for misconduct that violates constitutional rights. The audio recording, if admissible, may prove pivotal in establishing Mears’ alleged motive, while the defendants’ delayed response could strengthen Whitley’s case for a default judgment.

For now, both sides await Judge Joven’s next ruling. Whitley has requested a virtual appearance via Zoom for future hearings, citing his out-of-state status, and is prepared to present damages evidence, including pay stubs, arrest records, and testimony about emotional and financial harm. The defendants, meanwhile, must address the serious allegations of misconduct and justify their prolonged inaction.

As this legal battle continues, it underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in the justice system. With Judge Joven’s careful consideration, the outcome of Whitley v. Mears could have far-reaching implications for Marion County and beyond.