2022 Ohio 2155
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Plaintiff-appellant Keevon Johnson, a pro se inmate, sued the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction (ODRC) for negligence, alleging ODRC destroyed his personal property after a January 10, 2019 urine-screening incident.
- Johnson received a conduct report and was transferred to maximum security after the incident.
- He filed his complaint in the Court of Claims on July 23, 2021.
- ODRC moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing the two-year statute of limitations in R.C. 2743.16(A) barred the claim.
- Johnson argued accrual occurred only after his prison appeal was resolved (by March 2019), the Ohio Supreme Court’s COVID-19 tolling order applied, and Civ.R. 6(B) excusable neglect should excuse any lateness. The Court of Claims dismissed; the Tenth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2743.16(A) bars the claim as time‑barred | Claim accrued after prison appeal affirmed (by March 2019), so filing should be timely | Even if accrual is March 2019 (or Jan 10, 2019), the July 23, 2021 complaint was filed after two years | Action was barred; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Ohio Supreme Court COVID tolling made the filing timely | Tolling during emergency extended filing deadline into 2020 window | Tolling applied only to deadlines that would have expired between Mar 9 and Jul 30, 2020 and thus does not affect this limitations period | Tolling did not apply |
| Whether Civ.R. 6(B) excusable‑neglect can extend the statutory limitations period | Confinement, lack of legal resources, and pandemic-related restrictions constitute excusable neglect | Civ.R. 6(B) governs rules/orders, not statutes; it cannot extend statutes of limitations | Civ.R. 6(B) inapplicable to statutory limitations |
| Whether underlying merits affect the timeliness inquiry | ODRC mishandled property; no drugs found, so merits support relief | Merits are irrelevant to statute‑of‑limitations bar | Merits irrelevant once statute bars the action |
Key Cases Cited
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (2004) (de novo review applies to dismissals on Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
- State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545 (1992) (motion to dismiss tests complaint sufficiency)
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975) (12(B)(6) dismissal appropriate only if no set of facts would entitle plaintiff to relief)
- York v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143 (1991) (courts must presume truth of complaint allegations on motion to dismiss)
- Velotta v. Leo Petronzio Landscaping, 69 Ohio St.2d 376 (1982) (dismissal on statute‑of‑limitations grounds is appropriate only when complaint conclusively shows the bar)
- Collins v. Sotka, 81 Ohio St.3d 506 (1998) (cause of action accrues when wrongful act was committed)
- In re Tolling of Time Requirements Imposed by Rules Promulgated by Supreme Court & Use of Technology, 158 Ohio St.3d 1447 (2020) (Supreme Court administrative action construing COVID‑era tolling)
- Chapman Ents., Inc. v. McClain, 165 Ohio St.3d 428 (2021) (clarifies H.B. 197 tolling period ran from Mar 9, 2020 through Jul 30, 2020)
- Williams v. E. & L. Transport Co., 81 Ohio App.3d 108 (1991) (Civ.R. 6(B) extensions do not apply to statutes of limitations)