Boddie v. Prisley, 2013 Ohio 4462

Appellant Howard Boddie, Jr. (pro se) sued his former criminal defense attorney, Michael Prisley, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in a three-count complaint filed November 24, 2010.
Prisley answered the amended complaint and moved for summary judgment on May 6, 2011.
Boddie sought a continuance under Civ.R. 56(E)/(F) to conduct discovery, citing frequent required court appearances while incarcerated; the trial court denied the continuance.
On July 16, 2012, the trial court granted Prisley’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed all counts; Boddie did not file a direct appeal from that judgment.
On November 7, 2012, Boddie filed a Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion seeking relief from the judgment (challenging the summary-judgment ruling and denial of the continuance); the trial court denied the motion without a hearing.
Boddie appealed the denial of his Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion; the court of appeals affirmed, holding Civ.R. 60(B) cannot be used as a substitute for a direct appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Boddie’s Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion without a hearing	Boddie argued the court violated his access-to-courts, due-process, and equal-protection rights by denying relief and not holding a hearing on operative facts supporting relief	Prisley argued the motion improperly sought to relitigate issues that could have been raised on direct appeal (summary judgment and denial of continuance), so relief under Civ.R. 60(B) was inappropriate	Court held there was no abuse of discretion: Civ.R. 60(B) cannot be used to substitute for a direct appeal, so denial without a hearing was proper

Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1987) (standard that granting or denying Civ.R. 60(B) relief rests within the trial court’s discretion)