Pointer v. Smith
2021 Ohio 2247
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Plaintiff-appellant Dennis Pointer, an inmate at Mansfield Correctional Institution, sued several unnamed Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) employees seeking compensatory and punitive damages and removal of allegedly false information from his record.
- Pointer asserted claims in both defendants' official and personal capacities and filed motions to amend and for declaratory relief regarding parole records.
- The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas dismissed the complaint sua sponte, concluding it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because most claims sought money/equitable relief from a state instrumentality and thus fall within the Court of Claims' exclusive jurisdiction.
- The trial court also dismissed Pointer's request to remove false information as a mandamus claim failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- Pointer appealed; the Tenth District Court of Appeals reviewed the jurisdictional dismissal and the 12(B)(6) dismissal de novo and affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction: whether the common pleas court could hear Pointer's damages/equitable claims against ODRC employees | Pointer argued the trial court had jurisdiction (citing R.C. 2305.01; 2721.02(A); 2721.12(A) and venue rules) | Trial court/defendants: claims for monetary damages and equitable relief against a state instrumentality fall within the exclusive, original jurisdiction of the Court of Claims under R.C. 2743.03 and related provisions | Affirmed: common pleas court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; claims belong in Court of Claims |
| Mandamus / failure to state a claim: whether Pointer pleaded entitlement to have false information removed from his record via mandamus | Pointer sought removal of false information from his record (characterized as declaratory/extraordinary relief) | Trial court: Pointer failed to plead the elements of mandamus (clear legal right, clear legal duty, lack of adequate remedy); sua sponte dismissal appropriate for frivolous/unsustainable claims | Affirmed: mandamus claim dismissed for failure to state a claim; overall dismissal upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio Hosp. Assn. v. Ohio Dept. of Human Servs., 62 Ohio St.3d 97 (1991) (Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over certain equitable claims against the state)
- Nease v. Med. College Hosp., 64 Ohio St.3d 396 (1992) (Court of Claims determines initial questions of personal immunity for state employees)
- Johns v. Univ. of Cincinnati Med. Assocs., Inc., 101 Ohio St.3d 234 (2004) (procedure and scope for claims against state employees and immunity issues)
- State ex rel. Cobb v. Adult Parole Auth., 155 Ohio St.3d 527 (2018) (mandamus is the proper remedy to compel correction of parole/record inaccuracies)
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (elements required for mandamus: clear right, clear duty, no adequate remedy)
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975) (Civ.R. 12(B)(6) tests complaint sufficiency)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (1988) (12(B)(6) standard: construe complaint in plaintiff's favor; dismissal if no set of facts entitles relief)
- Celeste v. Wiseco Piston, 151 Ohio App.3d 554 (2003) (dismissal for failure to state a claim when plaintiff cannot prevail under any provable facts)
- State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 72 Ohio St.3d 106 (1995) (sua sponte 12(B)(6) dismissals warrant notice and opportunity to respond except when claims are frivolous)
- State ex rel. Buntin v. Styer, 147 Ohio St.3d 462 (2016) (sua sponte dismissal without notice appropriate for frivolous claims)