2022 Ohio 1827
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff Houston Byrd sued the Ohio Inspector General (and Randall J. Meyer, State of Ohio, et al.) alleging the OIG failed to act on complaints he filed against state agencies and thereby violated constitutional and statutory duties.
- Byrd's complaint referenced multiple statutes (R.C. 3.07, 2921.11, 2921.44, 2921.45, R.C. 121.42/121.44), 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions; he sought damages and other relief.
- Appellees moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim and alternatively argued the Court of Claims had exclusive jurisdiction over monetary claims against the state. Byrd filed a premature Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, finding the pleading was too vague to give defendants fair notice under Civ.R. 8(A).
- Byrd appealed raising multiple assignments of error (including merits of OIG conduct, default, request for visiting judge, and that dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was improper); the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of pleading for claims that OIG violated statutes/Constitution (R.C. 3.07, 2921.45, 2921.11, Public Law 96-303, Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1985) | Byrd alleged OIG willfully refused to acknowledge/act on his complaints and thereby violated those statutes and constitutional rights | Complaint is incoherent, conclusory, fails to state operative facts giving fair notice under Civ.R. 8(A) | Dismissal affirmed; claims fail to state a claim (too vague; many alleged causes of action have no private cause or required procedures not pled) |
| Trial court's failure to grant Byrd's requested "outside/visiting judge" review | Byrd requested an outside/en banc or visiting judge review | No affidavits of disqualification were filed under R.C. 2701.03 or applicable rules; no basis shown for outside judge | Denied; appellant failed to pursue required disqualification procedures |
| Whether judgment by default should have been entered | Byrd argued defendants failed to timely respond and thus default should apply | Defendants filed a timely pre-answer Civ.R. 12(B) motion; Civ.R. 12 alters answer timing and precludes default | Default not warranted; Civ.R. 12 motions suspend the answer period and record shows proper filings |
| Whether dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was proper | Byrd contended the complaint alleged actionable violations and damages | Defendants maintained the complaint is conclusory and provides no operative facts to support the statutory or constitutional claims | Affirmed: under O'Brien standard complaint insufficient; court need not accept conclusory legal assertions |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975) (articulates standard for dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6): dismissal only when plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling recovery)
- Costell, Admr. v. Toledo Hosp., 38 Ohio St.3d 221 (1988) (limits on recognizing private causes of action for certain statutory violations)
- Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A., 183 Ohio App.3d 40 (2009) (court need not accept unsupported or conclusory legal propositions on a motion to dismiss)