State ex rel. Sloan v. Mohr
2017 Ohio 7504
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Relator Marshall Sloan, an inmate at Belmont Correctional Institution, filed a pro se mandamus petition seeking specific medical treatment for Hepatitis C/liver cirrhosis and 24-hour access to toilet facilities.
- Sloan alleges he is a "non-responder" to prior Hepatitis C treatment and has elevated ammonia levels; he requests medications not on the prison formulary.
- Respondent Gary Mohr, Director of ODRC, moved to dismiss, arguing Sloan has other adequate remedies (federal §1983 action for medical indifference; inmate grievance process for facility access).
- The court found Sloan failed to comply with R.C. 2969.26(A) by not filing the required affidavit showing exhaustion of the inmate grievance procedure or obtaining a final decision from the Chief Inspector.
- The court also treated the medical claim as a potential Eighth Amendment/deliberate-indifference claim and concluded federal §1983 provides an adequate remedy; differences in medical opinion do not state a constitutional claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mandatory exhaustion/affidavit under R.C. 2969.26(A) | Sloan had pursued grievances and grievance process was futile/arbitrary | Mohr: Sloan failed to file the required affidavit and did not exhaust to Chief Inspector | Dismissed for failure to file the statutory affidavit and because Sloan had not obtained a final decision from the Chief Inspector |
| Appropriate vehicle for medical claim | Sloan invoked state criminal statutes (R.C. 2921.44, 2921.45) and sought mandamus relief for medical care | Mohr: Claim is a federal-style medical indifference claim with an adequate remedy in federal court under §1983 | Mandamus is not the proper remedy; state criminal statutes are not enforced via mandamus and federal §1983 is an adequate remedy |
| Substance of medical indifference claim | Sloan contends denial of requested medications and treatment constitutes denial of adequate medical care | Mohr: Sloan has received medical care; requested drugs are not on formulary; disagreement with providers is not constitutional violation | Court found exhibits show ongoing treatment; a difference of medical opinion does not rise to Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference |
| Relief sought (toilet access) | Sloan sought 24-hour unfettered toilet access as necessary relief | Mohr: grievance process is the adequate remedy for institutional-living complaints | Court required exhaustion under administrative grievance process; failure to exhaust justified dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (recognizes Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs as a §1983 claim)
- Douglas v. Money, 85 Ohio St.3d 348 (state prisoners have adequate remedy by way of federal §1983 for confinement-condition claims)
- Waites v. Gansheimer, 110 Ohio St.3d 250 (reiterating availability of §1983 remedies for prisoner claims)
- State ex rel. Brown v. Ashtabula Cty. Bd. of Elections, 142 Ohio St.3d 370 (mandamus is extraordinary and issued only when right is clear)
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (standard for dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6))