2024 Ohio 3261
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- Roman Hill, an African-American man, sued Cincinnati police officer Marc Schildmeyer (in his individual and official capacity) for malicious prosecution, false arrest, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after a 2021 traffic stop and arrest that resulted in charges later dismissed.
- Hill alleged officers acted with malice, racial animus, and gross negligence by stopping his vehicle, seizing his phone, lying about a canine search, arresting him, and pursuing baseless charges, all to cover up misconduct.
- Schildmeyer moved for judgment on the pleadings, attaching police bodycam and dashcam footage as public records to support his assertion of immunity under R.C. 2744.03.
- The trial court struck the videos as matters outside the pleadings, denied Schildmeyer's motion on malicious prosecution and punitive damages, and granted it on other claims.
- Schildmeyer appealed, arguing the trial court should have considered the videos and claiming the complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to defeat government-employee immunity.
- The appeal is limited to the immunity issue due to the interlocutory nature of the judgment under R.C. 2744.02(C).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should the court consider evidence outside the pleadings on a Civ.R. 12(C) motion? | Only pleadings may be considered. | Videos are public records, should be judicially noticed. | No; only pleadings or attachments referenced therein may be considered. |
| Can the court take judicial notice of bodycam/dashcam videos on such a motion? | Judicial notice not appropriate for disputed facts. | Judicial notice appropriate for public records. | No; content of disputed public records not proper for judicial notice. |
| Was it proper to strike Schildmeyer's exhibits attached to his reply brief? | New evidence on reply is improper; move to strike. | Videos rebut plaintiff's allegations, thus are valid on reply. | Proper to strike; new evidence and arguments not permitted on reply. |
| Did Hill sufficiently plead malice to overcome immunity at the pleadings stage? | Alleged facts of intentional, racially motivated, malicious conduct. | Complaint is conclusory and lacks factual basis for malice. | Yes; complaint sufficiently pleaded malice under notice pleading. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565 (Civ.R. 12(C) review limited to pleadings)
- Hester v. Dwivedi, 89 Ohio St.3d 575 (Courts may not consider evidence outside pleadings for judgment on pleadings)
- Trussell v. Gen. Motors Corp., 53 Ohio St.3d 142 (Elements of a malicious prosecution claim)
- Peterson v. Teodosio, 34 Ohio St.2d 161 (Judicial notice in motions for judgment on pleadings is limited)