Moore v. Naiman
2017 Ohio 1163
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Plaintiff-appellant Robert Moore filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief (Mar. 4, 2016) seeking a declaration that his 2009 plea agreement was invalid because it was unwritten and unsigned, particularly as to forfeited property and money.
- Moore had been charged in two 2009 indictments; after a jury verdict in one case, he agreed to a plea on August 14, 2009 that covered both cases, pled guilty to one count, waived various rights on the record, and agreed to forfeitures; he was sentenced to 13 years.
- Moore appealed; this court dismissed the appeals sua sponte based on trial-court entries showing waived appellate and other rights; later proceedings partially vacated only the portion of sentence concerning mandatory fines, and the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed that result.
- Moore named former assistant prosecutor Deborah Naiman as the sole defendant, alleging she “caused” the controversy by participating in an unwritten/oral plea agreement; his complaint sought a declaration the plea was unenforceable, not damages.
- Naiman moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) arguing failure to state a claim, res judicata, statute of limitations, and absolute prosecutorial immunity; the trial court granted dismissal and Moore appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a declaratory-judgment action against the former prosecutor presents a justiciable controversy | Moore: his oral/unsigned plea is unenforceable and creates a controversy; he seeks declaration that plea-contracts must be written and signed | Naiman: no viable controversy against her; complaint fails to state a claim and is barred (res judicata/limitations); prosecutorial immunity applies | Court: No real controversy or viable claim against Naiman; dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) proper |
| Whether Moore stated any actionable claims against Naiman (plea invalidity/forfeiture relief) | Moore: plea agreement (including forfeiture) is invalid because unwritten/unsigned and therefore not a binding contract | Naiman: allegations are conclusory and do not show a legally cognizable claim against a former prosecutor | Court: Allegations are conclusory; even taken as true, no set of facts would entitle Moore to relief against Naiman |
| Whether trial court erred by addressing res judicata via motion to dismiss | Moore: res judicata cannot be disposed of on Civ.R.12(B)(6) motion in this context | Naiman: argued res judicata among other defenses in support of dismissal | Court: Did not need to reach res judicata because no viable cause of action was pled; dismissal stands |
| Whether issues attacking the validity of the underlying plea and forfeiture are properly before this civil action | Moore: seeks court declaration that plea and forfeiture terms are unenforceable | Naiman: such challenges amount to collateral attack on criminal proceedings and are beyond scope of this civil declaratory action | Court: Claims that actually challenge the plea/sentence are outside scope; appellate court declines to address those collateral issues on this appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79, 814 N.E.2d 44 (2004) (standard of review for Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal is de novo)
- State v. Moore, 135 Ohio St.3d 151, 985 N.E.2d 432 (2012) (trial-court sentencing error as to mandatory fines; Supreme Court affirmed limited vacatur)
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 327 N.E.2d 753 (1975) (pleading standard: complaint must show some set of facts entitling plaintiff to relief)
- State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545, 605 N.E.2d 378 (1992) (Civ.R.12(B)(6) tests sufficiency of the complaint)
- State ex rel. Hickman v. Capots, 45 Ohio St.3d 324, 544 N.E.2d 639 (1989) (unsupported conclusions in a complaint are not admitted and cannot withstand dismissal)