Brown v. Greene Cty. Domestic Relations Div.
2017 Ohio 9307
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Sept. 1, 2016 a Greene County Domestic Relations court entered an ex parte domestic-violence protection order (DVPO) against Sean L. Brown; Brown alleges it was granted maliciously and without a full hearing.
- Brown claims the DVPO should have been dismissed after the complainant failed to attend the full hearing and that the unremoved order led to his arrest on Dec. 17, 2016 for violating the DVPO.
- On March 3, 2017 Brown sued the "Greene County Domestic Relations Division" in the Common Pleas (General Division) for intentional infliction of emotional distress and sought $500,000.
- The county prosecutor moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing (inter alia) the court/division is not a suable entity, judicial immunity bars suit against judges/magistrates, criminal conviction is not required for a DVPO, and appeal was Brown’s proper remedy.
- The trial court granted dismissal, concluding a court cannot be sued, judicial immunity covers the alleged actions (even if malicious), and Brown stated no viable civil claim; the dismissal was treated as with prejudice because amendment could not cure the defect.
- Brown appealed; the appellate court affirmed, upholding dismissal for failure to state a claim and rejecting Brown’s procedural and counsel-related challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper defendant / suability of the Domestic Relations Division | Brown sued the Domestic Relations Division for damages arising from the DVPO | A court or its divisions are not suable entities absent statutory authorization | Court: Division is not a proper defendant; courts generally cannot be sued |
| Judicial immunity for judge/magistrate actions | Brown alleged the DVPO was issued maliciously/bad faith, so immunity should not apply | Actions taken in judicial capacity are covered by absolute judicial immunity, even if malicious | Court: Judicial immunity bars civil liability for judicial acts; malicious/bad-faith allegations do not overcome immunity |
| Sufficiency of complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) | Brown alleged facts showing emotional distress and wrongful arrest due to the DVPO | Complaint fails to state a claim because defendant is not suable and alleged conduct is judicial in nature | Court: Complaint fails to state a claim; dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) proper |
| Procedural complaints (right to counsel, notice/hearing, dismissal with prejudice) | Brown argued he was denied appointed counsel, lacked notice/hearing under Civ.R. 41(B), and dismissal should not be with prejudice | No right to counsel in civil suits; Civ.R. 12(B)(6) requires no hearing; dismissal was substantively unfixable so treated as with prejudice | Court: No counsel entitlement; no hearing required on 12(B)(6); dismissal properly treated as with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (judge immune even if action was in error or malicious)
- Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (judicial immunity covers malicious acts)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (same: absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts)
- State ex rel. Cleveland Municipal Court v. Cleveland City Council, 34 Ohio St.2d 120 (1973) (a court is not sui juris; absent statute a court cannot be sued)
- Malone v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga Cty., 45 Ohio St.2d 245 (court cannot be sued absent statutory authorization)
- State ex rel. Fisher v. Burkhardt, 66 Ohio St.3d 189 (1993) (Ohio: judge not civilly liable for judicial acts)
- Todd v. United States, 158 U.S. 278 (1895) (definition/character of a court as a place where judicial power is exercised)