2020 Ohio 1521
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- Plaintiff William H. Evans, Jr., pro se, sued the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) alleging a retaliatory prison transfer that disrupted his life and legal efforts; he attached a prior complaint to his filing.
- ODRC moved to strike the attachment and to dismiss; the Court of Claims granted dismissal on October 21, 2019 and found the strike motion moot.
- The Court of Claims dismissed Evans' constitutional and R.C. 2307.60 (civil action predicated on criminal act) claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Civ.R. 12(B)(1).
- The Court of Claims dismissed Evans' asserted ADA claim under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim, reasoning the ADA allegation was conclusory and lacked factual detail.
- On appeal the Tenth District affirmed: it held inmate-placement decisions are generally protected by discretionary immunity; the Court of Claims cannot adjudicate whether a state actor committed a crime absent a predicate criminal or other competent-court determination; and Evans’ ADA and other tort claims were insufficiently pled.
- All four assignments of error were overruled and the dismissal was affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discretionary immunity bars suits over inmate transfers | Evans: ODRC abused discretion and acted retaliatorily in transferring him | ODRC: transfer/placement decisions are covered by discretionary immunity | Held: discretionary immunity applies; Evans’ conclusory facts do not overcome it |
| Whether Court of Claims may hear R.C. 2307.60 claims based on alleged criminal acts by state actors | Evans: may bring civil action against State for criminal violations | ODRC: Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction to determine whether a crime occurred as predicate for R.C. 2307.60 | Held: Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction to decide predicate criminality; plaintiff must obtain a predicate determination from a competent court first |
| Whether Evans adequately pled an ADA claim | Evans: ADA/rehabilitation statutes may be implicated | ODRC: allegation is conclusory and lacks factual particulars (disability, accommodation, discrimination) | Held: ADA claim dismissed under 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim; note is conclusory and insufficient |
| Whether dismissal standard was improperly applied | Evans: complaint could state many statutory/common-law claims and should not be dismissed | ODRC: complaint fails Civ.R. 8(A) and 12(B)(1)/(6) standards; must plead short/plain statement showing entitlement to relief | Held: trial court used correct standards; complaint failed to allege facts entitling relief and dismissal was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- York v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143 (1991) (motion to dismiss: if any set of facts consistent with complaint allows recovery, dismissal improper)
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (2004) (standards for reviewing 12(B)(6) motions; presume factual allegations true)
- Perez v. Cleveland, 66 Ohio St.3d 397 (1993) (pleading standards and presumption of truth for factual allegations)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (1988) (pleading sufficiency principles)
- Phung v. Waste Management, Inc., 23 Ohio St.3d 100 (1986) (pleading and inference standards)
- State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545 (1992) (12(B)(6) tests complaint sufficiency)
- Garofalo v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 104 Ohio App.3d 95 (1995) (appellate discussion of presuming factual allegations true on a 12(B)(6) review)