Duff v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.
100 N.E.3d 1144
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Dennis Duff, an inmate, underwent a parole revocation hearing in July 2015; the parole board extended his incarceration by 30 months.
- In June 2016 Duff sued the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (OAPA) in the Court of Claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging OAPA used inaccurate or non-existent information in its parole determination; he also sought $50,000 in damages.
- OAPA moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(1), arguing the Court of Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the complaint effectively attacked a parole decision.
- The Court of Claims granted the motion to dismiss, concluding parole decisions are executive functions involving discretion and not reviewable by that court.
- Duff appealed, arguing he sought a properly conducted parole redetermination under OAPA procedures rather than an appeal of the parole denial or immediate release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Claims has subject-matter jurisdiction over Duff's claims attacking a parole determination | Duff: claims seek a procedural/parole redetermination (compliance with OAPA handbook) and not immediate release; therefore Court of Claims may hear the suit | OAPA: Duff's claims effectively appeal the parole board's discretionary decision; Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over executive discretionary parole determinations | Court: Dismissal affirmed—the claims attack parole board discretion and are outside Court of Claims jurisdiction |
| Whether declaratory or injunctive relief based on parole decision may be heard in Court of Claims | Duff: relief sought is procedural compliance, not retroactive release; should be cognizable | OAPA: equitable relief attacking parole decisions was traditionally available in common pleas, but here underlying claim is noncognizable in Court of Claims because it attacks discretionary parole decision | Court: Because the underlying claim is noncognizable (attacks discretion), equitable claims fail and Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether Duff's prayer for $50,000 confers jurisdiction in Court of Claims | Duff: seeks monetary damages for loss of earned freedom | OAPA: Duff fails to allege a viable legal claim for damages; damages claim is another attack on parole discretion | Court: Monetary claim is not viable; does not establish jurisdiction for the action |
| Whether claims couched as negligence/declaratory can avoid jurisdictional bar by labeling | Duff: labels claims to avoid jurisdictional defect | OAPA: substance controls over labels—look to underlying nature | Court: Substance controls; labels do not confer jurisdiction when underlying attack is on parole discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Southgate Dev. Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transm. Corp., 48 Ohio St.2d 211 (1976) (trial court may consider materials beyond the complaint when resolving subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Von Hoene v. State, 20 Ohio App.3d 363 (1st Dist. 1985) (parole board decision to grant or deny parole is an executive function involving discretion)
- Ohio Hosp. Assn. v. Ohio Dept. of Human Servs., 62 Ohio St.3d 97 (1991) (Court of Claims jurisdictional principles where equitable relief is ancillary to claims within its jurisdiction)
- Racing Guild of Ohio, Local 304 v. State Racing Comm'n, 28 Ohio St.3d 317 (1986) (pre-Court-of-Claims practice allowed suits for declaratory and injunctive relief in common pleas)
- Measles v. Indus. Comm., 128 Ohio St.3d 458 (2011) (Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions against the state permitted by statutory waiver)