2017 Ohio 5606
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Steven Abercrombie sued the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction (ODRC) in the Court of Claims alleging false imprisonment after he claimed his 2008 Summit County five-year sentence expired March 5, 2013 but ODRC kept him incarcerated.
- ODRC answered and moved for summary judgment, submitting an affidavit from a sentence computation auditor asserting Abercrombie had earlier Cuyahoga County convictions (7–25 years) with a maximum expiration of October 27, 2019; his 2008 conviction occurred while on parole, resulting in reinstatement of prior sentences.
- Court of Claims granted ODRC summary judgment, finding ODRC lawfully confined Abercrombie and that he offered no evidence the sentencing entries were invalid.
- Abercrombie argued (1) genuine factual disputes remained, (2) ODRC relied on inadmissible affidavit evidence under Civ.R. 56(E), (3) he was denied adequate discovery under Civ.R. 56(F), and (4) the court improperly denied his motion to compel discovery under Civ.R. 37.
- The appellate court reviewed summary judgment de novo and the discovery rulings for abuse of discretion, affirmed the judgment for ODRC, and overruled all four assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issue of material fact existed on lawfulness of confinement | Abercrombie: his 2008 five-year sentence expired March 2013; ODRC unlawfully kept him confined | ODRC: earlier Cuyahoga sentences controlled, were reinstated after parole violation, so confinement lawful through 2019 | No genuine issue; summary judgment for ODRC affirmed |
| Admissibility of ODRC affidavit under Civ.R. 56(E) | Abercrombie: Castlin’s affidavit fails competence requirements and is inadmissible | ODRC: affidavit competent; appellant waived challenges by not moving to strike below | Appellant waived the objection; court properly considered affidavit |
| Whether court should have delayed summary judgment for further discovery (Civ.R. 56[F]) | Abercrombie: needed more time/documents (parole release paperwork) to oppose summary judgment | ODRC: provided responses; extensions were granted; requested materials were irrelevant or privileged | Court did not abuse discretion; appellant failed to show further discovery would create a triable issue |
| Denial of motion to compel discovery (Civ.R. 37) | Abercrombie: ODRC produced redacted/fraudulent documents and withheld relevant materials | ODRC: provided responsive documents; redactions privileged; additional items irrelevant | Denial affirmed; court acted within discretion in finding ODRC complied and materials irrelevant |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 60 Ohio St.3d 107 (1991) (state may be liable for false imprisonment but imprisonment under a valid court order is not actionable)
- Feliciano v. Kreiger, 50 Ohio St.2d 69 (1977) (definition of confinement for false imprisonment)
- Diehl v. Friester, 37 Ohio St. 473 (1882) (judgment/order that is not void cannot support false imprisonment claim)
- Lee v. Cleveland, 151 Ohio App.3d 581 (2003) (summary judgment standard and de novo appellate review)
- Stegawski v. Cleveland Anesthesia Group, Inc., 37 Ohio App.3d 78 (1987) (failure to object to evidence at summary judgment waives challenge)
- Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Wittekind, 134 Ohio App.3d 285 (1999) (appellate bar to raising affidavit admissibility issue for first time on appeal)