Henton v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
2017 Ohio 2630
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant W.D. Henton, an inmate, sued the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction in the Court of Claims for injuries from a March 13, 2014 fall on prison stairs.
- Henton filed his complaint on June 27, 2016, more than two years after the alleged incident.
- ODRC moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing the suit was time-barred by the two-year limitations period in R.C. 2743.16(A).
- The Court of Claims granted dismissal, concluding the complaint facially established the claim accrued on March 13, 2014 and was filed after the two-year limitations period.
- Henton appealed, arguing (1) R.C. 2305.15 tolls the limitations period during imprisonment and (2) R.C. 2305.19 (the savings statute) should save his claim.
- The appellate court reviewed dismissal de novo and examined whether the complaint conclusively showed the action was time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2305.15 tolls the limitations period for an imprisoned plaintiff bringing suit against the state | Henton: time should be tolled during his imprisonment under R.C. 2305.15 | ODRC: R.C. 2305.15(B) tolls only when the defendant is imprisoned, not when the plaintiff is imprisoned | Held: R.C. 2305.15(B) does not apply to toll limitations for an inmate plaintiff; assignment overruled |
| Whether R.C. 2305.19 (savings statute) saves Henton’s otherwise time-barred claim | Henton: savings statute should permit a new action if procedural issues prevented timely filing | ODRC: 2305.19 applies only where an action was timely commenced and then dismissed without prejudice or reversed; it does not create tolling for untimely initial filings | Held: 2305.19 inapplicable because Henton did not timely commence an earlier action and R.C. 2305.15 tolling does not apply; assignment overruled |
| Whether dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was proper when based on statute of limitations | Henton: statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and should not be raised by a 12(B)(6) motion absent the complaint conclusively showing the bar | ODRC: The complaint facially shows accrual and untimeliness, permitting dismissal on 12(B)(6) | Held: Dismissal proper because the complaint conclusively established the claim was time-barred |
| Whether the trial court improperly relied on materials outside the complaint | Henton: trial court erred procedurally in applying Civ.R. 12(B)(6) | ODRC: court confined its review to the complaint and applied correct standard | Held: No procedural error; court applied the correct Civ.R. 12(B)(6) standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Marok v. Ohio State Univ., 140 Ohio St.3d 1415 (discussion of accrual rule for causes of action)
- Collins v. Sotka, 81 Ohio St.3d 506 (general rule that cause accrues when wrongful act committed)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (pleading must be construed in plaintiff's favor for 12(B)(6) review)
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (dismissal under 12(B)(6) proper when plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling relief)
- Cundall v. U.S. Bank, 122 Ohio St.3d 188 (statute-of-limitations dismissal on the face of the complaint)
- Lewis v. Conner, 21 Ohio St.3d 1 (interpretation of the savings statute)
- Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Huron Rd. Hosp., 73 Ohio St.3d 391 (savings statute allows new action after dismissal without prejudice when earlier action was timely commenced)