2019 Ohio 3788
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Inmate William H. Evans, Jr. (at Ross CI) sent kites asking the institutional cashier to certify and mail six‑month inmate‑account statements and complaints to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas as required by R.C. 2969.25(C).
- Evans alleged a February 21 kite was not mailed until the court received it on March 14 (≈21‑day delay), and a March 19 kite had not been received as of March 30.
- Evans sued the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction in the Court of Claims seeking civil recovery under R.C. 2307.60(A)(1) (civil remedy for injury by criminal act) and alleged various criminal statutes were violated; he also referenced the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act.
- ODRC moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) (lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction) and Civ.R. 12(B)(6) (failure to state a claim). The Court of Claims granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.
- Evans appealed, arguing the Court of Claims erred in dismissing because he pleaded facts establishing the elements of the alleged criminal violations and thus a cognizable R.C. 2307.60(A)(1) claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Claims has subject‑matter jurisdiction over a claim under R.C. 2307.60(A)(1) based on alleged criminal acts by state employees | Evans: He alleged criminal acts (obstruction, theft, etc.) causing injury and may recover civilly under R.C. 2307.60(A)(1) | ODRC: Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate criminal matters or determine whether crimes occurred for purposes of awarding civil penalties | Court: Affirmed dismissal — Court of Claims lacks subject‑matter jurisdiction over criminal‑act claims against the state; appeal moot on merits |
| Whether Evans stated a claim under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) | Evans: Pleaded facts sufficient to state each criminal violation and resulting civil cause of action | ODRC: Even if allegations suffice, the forum lacks jurisdiction; dismissal appropriate | Court: Did not reach merits; dismissal affirmed on jurisdictional grounds |
| Whether the complaint properly asserted a civil claim under the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act | Evans (in reply): Argued TCPA/R.C. 2923.34 claim based on alleged pattern of criminal activity | ODRC: Not separately addressed in decision | Court: Declined to consider because it was not raised as an assignment of error on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Bush v. Spurlock, 42 Ohio St.3d 77 (1989) (a court must dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) when complaint fails to raise a cognizable cause of action)
- Crosby‑Edwards v. Ohio Bd. of Embalmers & Funeral Dirs., 175 Ohio App.3d 213 (2008) (standard of de novo review for Civ.R. 12(B)(1) jurisdictional rulings)
- Volbers‑Klarich v. Middletown Mgt., Inc., 125 Ohio St.3d 494 (2010) (Civ.R. 12(B)(6) tests complaint sufficiency; infer facts in plaintiff's favor)
- LeRoy v. Allen, Yurasek & Merklin, 114 Ohio St.3d 323 (2007) (pleading standards and inferences on motion to dismiss)
- Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 95 Ohio St.3d 416 (2002) (if any set of facts consistent with complaint would permit recovery, dismissal is improper)
- York v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143 (1991) (same principle on factual sufficiency for dismissal)
- Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp. v. McKinley, 130 Ohio St.3d 156 (2011) (appellate review of Civ.R. 12(B)(6) is de novo)