Faber v. Seneca Cty. Sheriff's Dept.
108 N.E.3d 213
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On Jan. 10, 2017 Eric A. Faber and family sued Seneca County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff William Eckelberry, alleging Eric (an inmate) was assaulted in jail on Jan. 13, 2015 by an ICE detainee motivated to obtain a new criminal charge to delay deportation.
- Plaintiffs sought damages and injunctive relief requiring segregation of ICE detainees or barring the county’s participation in ICE detention.
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing Eckelberry was sued only in his official capacity and entitled to R.C. Chapter 2744 immunity.
- The trial court granted the motion and found the injunctive claim moot; plaintiffs appealed.
- The court of appeals reviewed whether the complaint sued Eckelberry individually (thus avoiding sovereign immunity) and whether the injunctive claim presented a live controversy.
- The appellate court affirmed: it held Eckelberry was sued in his official capacity and no R.C. 2744.02(B) exception applied; the injunctive claim was moot because the complaint did not allege an ongoing practice or that Eric remained exposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sheriff Eckelberry was sued individually (avoiding R.C. 2744 immunity) | Complaint sought damages jointly and severally and alleged recklessness against Eckelberry, so he was sued individually | Complaint framed challenges to office/policies and lacked language pleading personal capacity; thus official-capacity suit invoking sovereign immunity | Court: Eckelberry sued in official capacity; R.C. 2744 immunity applies |
| Whether any R.C. 2744.02(B) exception to immunity applies | Alleged failure to safeguard inmates at jail caused harm — asserts liability against sheriff/office | Complaint did not allege facts fitting any of the five statutory exceptions (vehicle, proprietary function, road, building defect, express statutory liability) | Court: No R.C. 2744.02(B) exception pled; dismissal proper |
| Whether plaintiffs stated a viable claim under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) despite immunity defense | Facts alleged could support liability and survive dismissal | Affirmative defense of immunity is apparent from complaint and defeats the claim | Court: As pleaded, plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling relief; 12(B)(6) dismissal affirmed |
| Whether injunctive relief claim was moot | Injunctive relief sought to change jail practice of holding ICE detainees with other inmates; plaintiffs argue practice continues and risk persists | Complaint alleged assault in 2015 but did not allege Eric remained in jail or that the practice continued; no live controversy | Court: Claim moot — no continuing injury alleged and injunction would have no practical effect |
Key Cases Cited
- LeRoy v. Allen, Yurasek, & Merklin, 872 N.E.2d 254 (Ohio 2007) (standard for Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal)
- Lambert v. Clancy, 927 N.E.2d 585 (Ohio 2010) (official-capacity suit treated as suit against political subdivision)
- Riffle v. Physicians & Surgeons Ambulance Serv., Inc., 986 N.E.2d 983 (Ohio 2013) (three-tier R.C. 2744 analysis)
- Arnett v. Precision Strip, Inc., 972 N.E.2d 168 (Ohio 2012) (pleadings construed in nonmoving party’s favor on 12(B)(6) review)
- Colbert v. Cleveland, 790 N.E.2d 781 (Ohio 2003) (framework for evaluating R.C. 2744 immunity exceptions)