Manville v. Hazen, 133 N.E.3d 1029

Manville (pro se) sued Hazen seeking return of money, vehicles, and household contents he alleged he transferred to her while incarcerated and after giving her a 2007 power of attorney.
Hazen filed for bankruptcy in 2008; Manville received notice as a creditor but did not file a proof of claim; Hazen received a discharge in 2013 and the case closed in 2014. Manville later sought to reopen bankruptcy proceedings unsuccessfully.
Manville filed the instant civil action in January 2017 and repeatedly submitted pro se motions; service on Hazen was not perfected until May 2017.
The trial court denied Manville’s in forma pauperis motion, denied his default-judgment motions, refused transport from prison for hearings, and denied discovery requests made before service.
Hazen moved for summary judgment arguing Manville’s claims were barred by her bankruptcy discharge; the trial court granted summary judgment on res judicata grounds derived from the bankruptcy proceeding.
Manville appealed five assignments of error; the appellate court affirmed, holding the bankruptcy discharge precluded Manville’s claims and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion on the other procedural rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred denying in forma pauperis status	Manville argued court should waive filing fees and costs	Court argued Manville abused process with repeated frivolous filings; local rule permits denial after review	Denial affirmed: court did not abuse discretion given Manville's filing history
Whether default judgment should have been entered	Manville claimed Hazen failed to defend timely, warranting default	Hazen answered (after service) and was granted leave to file instanter	Denial affirmed: no effective service at time of first motion; later appearance and leave to answer justified refusal
Whether Manville was entitled to presence/transport or communication for prosecution	Manville argued prison transport/alternative participation was required	Court noted no absolute right for incarcerated civil litigants; hearings were canceled after summary judgment	Denial affirmed: no prejudice because pretrial/trial were canceled following summary judgment
Whether summary judgment was improper — claims barred by bankruptcy discharge	Manville argued he was entitled to recovery of his property and funds	Hazen argued bankruptcy discharge and res judicata bar claims that were or could have been raised in bankruptcy	Summary judgment affirmed: Manville was a creditor/party in bankruptcy; discharge was final and barred relitigation of same causes of action

Guisinger v. Spier, 166 Ohio App.3d 728 (2006) (indigence determinations construed liberally but not automatic waiver of costs)
Wilson v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 138 Ohio App.3d 239 (2000) (factors for denying in forma pauperis where litigant has abused process)
DeHart v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 69 Ohio St.2d 189 (1982) (courts should decide cases on the merits; default judgments are harsh remedy)
Federated Mgmt. Co. v. Latham & Watkins, 138 Ohio App.3d 815 (1999) (participants beyond formally named parties are barred by res judicata in bankruptcy context)
Jungkunz v. Fifth Third Bank, 99 Ohio App.3d 148 (1994) (elements for preclusion by prior bankruptcy judgment)
Sanders Confectionery Prods., Inc. v. Heller Fin., Inc., 973 F.2d 474 (6th Cir. 1992) (creditors and those in privity treated as parties for res judicata in bankruptcy)
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (no Fourteenth Amendment right to physical presence in civil proceedings for prisoners)