2021 Ohio 418
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- In March 2014 Brandon was indicted in Muskingum County on drug-possession charges; he filed a suppression motion that was denied after a June 2014 hearing. He pleaded no contest on June 4, 2014 and was sentenced to 11 months.
- On appeal the Fifth District remanded for additional findings; after the trial court supplemented the record the Fifth District reversed the suppression ruling in January 2016 and the criminal case was later dismissed.
- On December 27, 2019 Brandon filed a complaint in the Court of Claims against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction seeking relief for wrongful imprisonment.
- The Department moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and (6), arguing the Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction because Brandon had not first obtained a preliminary wrongful-imprisonment determination from the common pleas court as required by R.C. 2743.48.
- The Court of Claims granted the motion to dismiss; Brandon argued on appeal that his pleading could be treated as a false-imprisonment claim and that "false" and "wrongful" imprisonment are synonymous.
- The Tenth District affirmed, holding Brandon failed to satisfy the statutory prerequisite for a Court of Claims action and, alternatively, that any false-imprisonment claim would be time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Claims has jurisdiction over a wrongful-imprisonment claim when the plaintiff has not obtained a common-pleas determination under R.C. 2743.48 | Brandon argued the Court of Claims could hear his complaint without a prior common-pleas determination | ODRC argued R.C. 2743.48 requires a mandatory preliminary determination by the county common pleas court before filing in Court of Claims | Court: jurisdiction is lacking; the common-pleas determination is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite |
| Whether the complaint should be treated as a common-law false-imprisonment claim to avoid the statutory prerequisite | Brandon asserted "false imprisonment" is synonymous with "wrongful imprisonment" and the motion to dismiss should be converted to a motion for a more definite statement | ODRC maintained the complaint exclusively pleaded wrongful-imprisonment under R.C. 2743.48 and lacked a false-imprisonment claim | Court: false and wrongful imprisonment are distinct; complaint pleaded wrongful-imprisonment, not false-imprisonment, so statutory prerequisite applies |
| If construed as false imprisonment, whether the claim is timely | Brandon did not contest timing other than seeking leave to amend | ODRC noted statute of limitations and Ohio law limiting false-imprisonment suits | Court: any false-imprisonment claim would be time-barred (release July 1, 2015; limitations expired before 2019 filing) |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975) (standard for dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (1988) (treating complaint allegations as true on motion to dismiss)
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (2004) (standards for reviewing Civ.R. 12 motions and de novo review)
- Walden v. State, 47 Ohio St.3d 47 (1989) (statutory scheme permitting wrongful-imprisonment actions against the State)
- Feliciano v. Krieger, 50 Ohio St.2d 69 (1977) (definition of false imprisonment under Ohio law)
- Bennett v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 60 Ohio St.3d 107 (1991) (R.C. 2743.48 supplements, not replaces, common-law false-imprisonment tort)