2019 Ohio 4871
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiff William H. Evans, Jr., an inmate, alleged a U.S. Marshal federal detainer was posted to his inmate record in 2008 and later removed by the Department of Rehabilitation & Correction (DRC) on September 11, 2017.
- Evans sued DRC in the Court of Claims (Jan. 10, 2019), seeking monetary damages and declaratory relief, claiming DRC knowingly maintained an unauthorized detainer.
- Causes of action asserted: violation of R.C. 1347.10 (intentionally maintaining inaccurate personal information) and R.C. 2921.52 (using/participating in a sham legal process).
- Evans also asked the Court of Claims to take judicial notice of filings in his prior cases (Evans I and Evans II) to support his claims; the Court refused to take such notice in resolving a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion.
- The Court of Claims dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); Evans appealed to the Tenth District Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 1347.10 claim survives against a corrections agency | Evans: DRC intentionally kept inaccurate personal info (detainer) and is liable under R.C. 1347.10 | DRC: R.C. 1347.04(A)(1)(d) exempts correctional agencies from chapter 1347 liability | Court: Dismissed R.C. 1347.10 claim — corrections agency is exempt |
| Whether R.C. 2921.52 (sham legal process) claim states a compensable injury | Evans: Posting the detainer was sham process and statutory violation; seeks damages | DRC: Even if detainer was improper, complaint alleges no compensable injury (e.g., denial/delay of parole) required for civil recovery | Court: Dismissed R.C. 2921.52 claim — no facts showing compensable harm, statute does not presume damages |
| Whether court should take judicial notice of documents from Evans I and Evans II in deciding a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion | Evans: Prior filings establish detainer was sham and support his complaint; asked court to judicially notice them | DRC: Prior case filings are not part of this record and not subject to judicial notice on a 12(B)(6) ruling | Court: Denied judicial notice — a trial court may not take judicial notice of proceedings in other cases when ruling on a 12(B)(6) motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown Mgt., 125 Ohio St.3d 494 (2010) (standard for reviewing Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal and treating matters outside complaint)
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (2004) (de novo review and standards for appellate review of dismissals)
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975) (no recovery unless complaint alleges a set of facts supporting relief)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (1988) (pleading standards; courts need not accept unsupported conclusions)
- Wilson v. Patton, 49 Ohio App.3d 150 (1988) (R.C. 1347 exemptions apply to correctional facilities)
- State ex rel. Keith v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 141 Ohio St.3d 375 (2014) (parole authority may not rely on information it knows or has reason to know is inaccurate)