Pankey v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol
2021 Ohio 1317
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Maurice Pankey filed a Court of Claims complaint alleging assault and battery by an Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper during a March 7, 2018 traffic stop, seeking $7,000,000.
- He alleged force was used that injured his right ring finger, face, and shoulder; Cincinnati PD was initially named but later dismissed.
- OSHP moved for summary judgment; Trooper Kyle Doebrich submitted an affidavit stating Pankey ignored orders to exit and kept reaching toward the passenger-side floorboard, supporting use of force to remove him.
- Christopher Noble, Pankey’s probation officer, averred Pankey reported a swollen right finger from an earlier basketball injury the day before the stop.
- Pankey was later convicted of resisting arrest arising from the March 7 stop; Pankey submitted multiple letters to the court which the trial court deemed inadmissible under Civ.R. 56.
- The Court of Claims granted summary judgment for OSHP; Pankey appealed arguing the trial court erred in dismissing his action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on Pankey's excessive-force/assault and battery claims | Pankey contends dismissal was erroneous and an abuse of discretion. | OSHP argued the undisputed evidence (Doebrich affidavit and Pankey's resisting-arrest conviction) shows force was objectively reasonable. | Affirmed: summary judgment proper; force was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment analysis. |
| Whether Pankey's unsworn letters and submissions could defeat a properly supported summary-judgment motion | Pankey relied on his letters and prior correspondence to oppose summary judgment. | OSHP argued Pankey's letters were inadmissible, lacked certificates of service, and failed to comply with Civ.R. 56 evidentiary requirements. | Held: the letters were not admissible evidence under Civ.R. 56 and could not create a genuine issue of material fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness standard for use of force)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (reasonableness judged from perspective of reasonable officer on scene)
- Lytle v. Columbus, 70 Ohio App.3d 99 (10th Dist. 1990) (apply Graham analysis to excessive-force claims)
- State v. White, 142 Ohio St.3d 277 (Ohio recognizes justification for reasonable force by officers)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (moving party’s initial summary-judgment burden and nonmoving party’s response requirements)