Daly v. Certo
2025 Ohio 293
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2025Background
- On March 14, 2023 William Daly (pro se) sued Riverside prosecutors (Certo, Slyman), Riverside police Officer Steven Perfetti, two law firms (Altick & Corwin; Buckley King) and the City of Riverside asserting multiple torts arising from 2018–2019 criminal proceedings.
- Underlying events: October 31, 2018 ex parte protection order against Daly; November 2, 2018 police contact at Riverside PD; 2019 municipal charges (violation of protection order and related counts); Daly entered a no-contest plea to one charge on September 13, 2019 and three other charges were dismissed pursuant to plea; Daly later obtained appellate reversal and the July 30, 2019 charge was dismissed following remand in March 2022.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, submitting deposition testimony, exhibits, officer/deputy affidavits, phone-extraction materials, and audio/video recordings. Daly opposed but did not file affidavits or other admissible Civ.R. 56(C) evidence in the trial court (he attached a purported affidavit for the first time on appeal).
- The trial court (Feb. 20, 2024) granted summary judgment to all defendants largely on statute-of-limitations grounds and, alternatively, on prosecutorial/official immunity; derivative employer/firms and the City were dismissed on vicarious-liability/immunity bases.
- The Second District affirmed: it refused to consider the affidavit first submitted on appeal, held most tort claims were time-barred or unsupported, and found prosecutors and the officer entitled to immunity (and probable cause barred malicious-prosecution).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the trial court erred by not considering Daly’s sworn affidavit | Daly: he filed/relied on an affidavit; court ignored it | Defs/trial ct: no affidavit was in the trial-court record; appellate courts cannot consider new evidence | Court: affidavit not in record; appellate court will not consider it; assignment overruled |
| 2. Accrual of causes of action / tolling under Heck | Daly: accrual was tolled until dismissal of the criminal case (March 23, 2022) per Heck | Defs: Ohio tort accrual rules apply; Heck does not delay accrual of state torts and applies narrowly to §1983/malicious-prosecution-type claims that would invalidate a conviction | Court: Heck does not postpone accrual for Daly’s state-law claims generally; most claims accrued earlier and are time-barred |
| 3. Whether defendants met the Dresher summary-judgment burden and whether tort claims (false arrest, defamation, abuse of process, IIED, tortious interference, others) survive | Daly: defendants’ papers were insufficient under Dresher; genuine issues remain | Defs: identified deposition, documents, affidavits, phone/extraction and recordings showing absence of triable issues or that claims are time-barred | Court: defendants met initial burden; Daly produced no admissible opposing evidence; summary judgment proper (claims dismissed on SOL or merits) |
| 4. Immunity and malicious-prosecution: are Certo/Slyman/Perfetti immune; was there probable cause | Daly: Slyman allegedly a "faux" special prosecutor (no appointment proof) so no immunity; conduct was malicious; prosecution wrongful | Defs: prosecutors’ acts in initiating/advocating prosecution are quasi‑judicial and absolutely immune; officer entitled to statutory qualified immunity unless malicious/wanton/reckless; probable cause existed (Daly admitted telling officer he had a gun while under a protection order) | Court: prosecutors (Certo, Slyman) entitled to absolute/common‑law and statutory immunity for prosecutorial acts; Perfetti entitled to employee immunity under R.C. 2744 absent evidence of malice/wantonness; probable cause existed for the charged protection-order violation, so malicious-prosecution fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (federal suit challenging conviction accrual rule and favorable‑termination requirement for §1983 claims analogous to malicious prosecution)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (false‑arrest §1983 claim accrues when detention pursuant to legal process begins, clarifying limits of Heck tolling)
- McDonough v. Smith, 588 U.S. 109 (2019) (accrual and favorable‑termination principles for claims tied to criminal conviction invalidation)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (absolute immunity for prosecutorial functions involving initiating and presenting the State’s case)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary‑judgment standard governed by whether a fair‑minded jury could find for nonmoving party)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (movant’s initial summary‑judgment burden and reciprocal duty of nonmovant to present specific evidentiary materials)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998) (summary‑judgment principles under Ohio law)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (1988) (summary‑judgment burdens of proof and evidence under Ohio law)
- Yaklevich v. Kemp, Schaeffer & Rowe Co., L.P.A., 68 Ohio St.3d 294 (1994) (distinguishing abuse of process and malicious prosecution elements)
- Criss v. Springfield Twp., 56 Ohio St.3d 82 (1990) (elements of malicious prosecution: malice, lack of probable cause, and favorable termination)