Former Indiana Republican Congressional Candidate Seeks $4 Million Default Judgment Against Marion County Prosecutor Ryan Mears

Indianapolis, IN – March 31, 2025 – Gabriel “Gabe” Whitley, a former Indiana Republican congressional candidate, has escalated his legal battle against Marion County Prosecutor Ryan Mears and the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office, filing a motion for a default judgment today that demands $4 million in damages. Whitley, representing himself pro se, claims that Mears and his office violated his constitutional rights by charging him with a felony intimidation charge over a tweet, an action he alleges was politically motivated and designed to assist a friend of the prosecutor in securing a separate default judgment against him.

Whitley initiated his lawsuit against Mears and the Prosecutor’s Office in December 2024, serving the defendants properly via certified mail, with the office acknowledging receipt. According to Whitley, the defendants failed to respond to the lawsuit for three months, prompting him to file for a default judgment—a legal remedy available when a defendant does not reply within the required timeframe under Indiana court rules. In his filing today, Whitley outlined his requested relief, accusing Mears of official misconduct and asserting that the felony charge was a deliberate attempt to infringe upon his First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendment rights.

Court Filing Details

In the court documents filed pro se, Whitley requests the following from the court:

1. Appointment of a Special Prosecutor: To investigate and potentially prosecute Ryan Mears for official misconduct related to the alleged abuses of power.

2. Constitutional Violations Declaration: A ruling that the defendants violated Whitley’s rights under the First (free speech), Fourth (unreasonable search and seizure), and Eighth (cruel and unusual punishment) Amendments.

3. Injunction: A court order barring Mears and his office from further “political persecution” against Whitley.

4. Costs and Fees: Reimbursement for costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in pursuing the lawsuit.

5. Damages: A total of $4 million, comprising $400,000 in compensatory damages to offset a default judgment allegedly obtained illegally by Abdul Hakim Shabazz with the defendants’ assistance (Case No. 49D11-2405-CT-022160), and $3.6 million in punitive damages for the constitutional violations. These funds, Whitley claims, would cover attorney’s fees from defending the criminal case (Case No. 49D36-2408-F6-021970), costs of a GPS monitor imposed on him, medical expenses, and lost income stemming from the intimidation charge.

6. Additional Relief: Any further remedies the court deems appropriate.

Whitley argues that the felony intimidation charge, a Class 6 felony under Indiana law, was baseless and retaliatory, stemming from a tweet he posted. He alleges that Mears orchestrated the charge to benefit a friend, Abdul Hakim Shabazz, who subsequently secured a default judgment against Whitley in a separate civil case. “They arrested me to get a default judgment for their friend,” Whitley stated. “The Prosecutor thought he didn’t have to reply back to my lawsuit because he thought he was above the law. Unfortunately, there are consequences, and it’s going to cost taxpayers $4 million for violating my rights.”

Financial Implications for Indianapolis

Whitley asserts that he intends to collect the $4 million default judgment from the General Funds of Marion County. Given that Indianapolis and Marion County operate as a consolidated government (often referred to as “Unigov”), he contends that these funds are essentially interchangeable with the city’s budget. “This falls on Ryan Mears, and voters should remember this when he runs for office again,” Whitley emphasized. He pointed to the city’s financial reserves, noting, “The City of Indianapolis can’t say they’re broke because their accounts have $1.2 billion in them.”

Whitley anticipates resistance from the city, predicting, “I wouldn’t be surprised if they try to stall procedures and stall payment.” He went further, expressing concerns for his safety: “I wouldn’t be surprised if they try to kill me and make it look like a suicide. I have never been suicidal, and I didn’t kill myself. I’m an asshole, and I’m not a coward—everyone knows I fight back against the political machine.”

Whitley’s Broader Claims

Whitley’s legal filing paints a picture of systemic abuse within the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office, alleging that Mears leveraged his authority to target him unfairly. He frames the felony charge as a direct attack on his free speech and a coordinated effort to silence his political activism. “This is just the beginning, much more to come,” Whitley declared, signaling that he plans to pursue additional actions against those he believes have wronged him.

The case has drawn attention due to its implications for prosecutorial accountability and the potential financial burden on Marion County taxpayers. Whitley’s decision to represent himself pro se adds an unconventional twist to the proceedings, showcasing his determination to challenge the legal and political establishment head-on.

What’s Next?

As of now, the court has yet to rule on Whitley’s motion for default judgment. If granted, it could set a significant precedent regarding the consequences of prosecutorial inaction in civil lawsuits and the protection of constitutional rights in Indiana. For Mears and the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office, the case represents a growing controversy that could impact public trust and political prospects moving forward.

For Gabe Whitley, this lawsuit is more than a personal vendetta—it’s a crusade against what he perceives as corruption and overreach. Whether he secures the $4 million judgment remains to be seen, but his bold rhetoric and unyielding stance ensure that this legal saga will remain in the spotlight.

In Indiana courts, when someone fails to respond to a lawsuit within the required timeframe—typically 20 days after being served under Indiana Trial Rule 6—and especially if they refuse to respond for three months, a default judgment is almost always issued upon the plaintiff’s motion and is rarely denied. Indiana law strongly favors resolving cases on their merits, but if a defendant ignores the summons and complaint for an extended period, such as three months, and only attempts to respond after the plaintiff files for default judgment, courts are unlikely to set aside the default unless the defendant can show exceptional circumstances, like a lack of proper service or excusable neglect. Under Indiana Trial Rule 55, once the plaintiff moves for default and the clerk or court enters it, the defendant’s belated response faces a high bar to undo the judgment, making denial of the default rare in such scenarios.