2018 Ohio 2272
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff Dante' D. Gordon, an ODRC inmate, sued the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction alleging negligent supervision, discrimination/harassment, violations of administrative rules, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and various constitutional and criminal claims.
- Gordon filed an original complaint, then a first amended complaint; he later filed a second amended complaint without timely leave or defendant consent.
- 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 struck the untimely second amended complaint and dismissed the first amended complaint on the cited grounds.
- Gordon appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend and erred in dismissing his claims.
- The appellate court reviewed denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion and reviewed dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and Civ.R. 12(B)(1) (jurisdiction) de novo where applicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of leave to file second amended complaint under Civ.R.15(A) | Gordon argued the court wrongly denied his later-filed second amended complaint and thereby violated his rights to amend and to due process/equal protection | ODRC argued the amendment was untimely (filed >28 days after prior pleading) and filed without consent or leave, and appeared aimed at delay/circumvention | Court did not abuse discretion; amendment was properly denied for noncompliance with Civ.R.15(A) |
| Negligence claim based on alleged violations of ODRC rules/policies | Gordon contended ODRC violated administrative rules and grievance procedures, constituting negligence | ODRC asserted violations of internal rules alone do not create a private cause of action against the Department | Dismissed under Civ.R.12(B)(6): alleged administrative-code violations do not by themselves state a cognizable negligence claim against ODRC |
| Harassment claim grounded on Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-4(B) | Gordon claimed harassment based on alleged violation of that administrative code | ODRC argued the administrative code does not itself create an independent cause of action | Dismissed: violation of the administrative rule does not independently supply a cause of action |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) | Gordon alleged stress, paranoia, and post-traumatic stress from ODRC conduct | ODRC argued allegations do not meet the high standard for IIED—conduct must be extreme/outrageous and distress severe and debilitating | Dismissed under Civ.R.12(B)(6): allegations failed to plead the severe/egregious emotional harm required for IIED |
| Constitutional and criminal claims | Gordon asserted constitutional violations and criminal conduct by ODRC | ODRC maintained Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over constitutional claims and criminal matters | Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: Court of Claims cannot adjudicate constitutional or criminal claims against the state |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilmington Steel Prods., Inc. v. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co., 60 Ohio St.3d 120 (trial-court abuse-of-discretion standard for leave to amend)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion defined)
- Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411 (pleading allegations taken as admitted on motion to dismiss)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (draw all reasonable inferences for nonmoving party)
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (12(B)(6) standard — plaintiff can prove no set of facts)
- Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (court need not accept legal conclusions as factual allegations)
- Yeager v. Local Union 20, Teamsters, 6 Ohio St.3d 369 (IIED standard; excludes insults, petty oppressions)
- Paugh v. Hanks, 6 Ohio St.3d 72 (requirement that emotional distress be severe and debilitating)