2022 Ohio 1412
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background:
- Inmate Craig Myers (appellee) warned ODRC staff that his cellmate planned to assault him after a corrections officer read a note aloud; Myers was attacked and injured on July 4, 2017.
- Myers sued the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction (ODRC) in the Court of Claims for negligence; a magistrate found ODRC liable (constructive notice) but awarded only $1,000 because the magistrate found Myers "produced very little evidence" of damages.
- Myers, proceeding pro se at trial held inside an ODRC facility, had subpoenaed ODRC-employed medical witnesses but, during trial, the magistrate made on-the-record comments emphasizing that the proceeding would focus on whether ODRC had notice of the assault, which created confusion about whether damages evidence should be presented.
- Relying on that impression, Myers released medical witnesses and confined much of his testimony to liability; ODRC also released its medical witnesses.
- Myers (represented by counsel) later filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion and submitted the trial transcript; the Court of Claims granted partial relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5), concluding extraordinary circumstances justified reopening the damages determination and scheduling an evidentiary hearing.
- ODRC appealed; the Tenth District affirmed, holding the Court of Claims did not abuse its discretion in granting relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Claims abused its discretion by granting relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) to reopen damages. | Myers: Magistrate's on-the-record statements misled him into releasing medical witnesses and limiting testimony; these comments created "extraordinary circumstances" and undue hardship justifying relief; the motion was timely and meritorious. | ODRC: 60(B)(5) cannot substitute for other specific subsections; Myers' failure to present damages evidence was his own fault (pro se status not an excuse); issues could have been raised on appeal. | Court: Affirmed. The magistrate's comments and the trial context (inmate pro se, witnesses were ODRC employees, confusion about scope) created extraordinary circumstances; relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) was appropriate and not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (sets conjunctive Civ.R. 60(B) requirements)
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (abuse-of-discretion standard on Civ.R. 60(B) review)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (definition of "abuse of discretion")
- Caruso-Ciresi, Inc. v. Lohman, 5 Ohio St.3d 64 (Civ.R. 60(B)(5) is a catch-all, not a substitute for other grounds)
- Coulson v. Coulson, 5 Ohio St.3d 12 (fraud on the court falls within Civ.R. 60(B)(5))
- Volodkevich v. Volodkevich, 35 Ohio St.3d 152 (judge participation/appearance of impropriety can support Civ.R. 60(B)(5))
- State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner, 76 Ohio St.3d 149 (movant must satisfy all Civ.R. 60(B) elements)
- Berk v. Matthews, 53 Ohio St.3d 161 (appellate review limits when applying abuse-of-discretion)
- Reichert v. Reichert, 23 Ohio App.3d 67 (relief where court failed to consider dispositive evidence)
- Dunn Specialty Steels, Inc. v. World Metals, Inc., 135 Ohio App.3d 367 (trial court error in weighing damages can justify Civ.R. 60(B)(5) relief)