Thomas v. Bauschlinger
2013 Ohio 1164
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Thomas plaintiffs allege 2009 condemnation of building/garage by Barberton and demolition without notice, destroying their belongings.
- Police entered the property without a warrant, roughed Sean Thomas, and he was convicted of criminal trespass.
- In 2011 the City demolished the condemned property while an appeal was pending, destroying personal property and denying retrieval access.
- Thomases sue Mayor Genet, Building Commissioner Bauschlinger, and Prosecutor Reese for damages including destruction of property, police misconduct, and malicious prosecution.
- Trial court dismissed under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); appellate briefing combines assignments; court reviews immunity defenses and individual liability.
- On appeal, court sustains claims against Bauschlinger for potential acts outside immunity and sustains immunity defenses for Reese and Genet.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court err in dismissing Reese on prosecutorial immunity grounds? | Thomases claim malicious prosecution; immunity applies only if not properly argued. | Prosecutor Reese entitled to absolute immunity for acts in initiating and pursuing charges. | Dismissal upheld; Reese immune from liability. |
| Did the trial court err in dismissing Genet on political-subdivision immunity grounds? | Any acts by Mayor Genet could be outside scope or in bad faith; immunity may not apply. | Mayor Genet immune under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6). | Dismissal sustained; Genet immune. |
| Did the trial court err in dismissing Bauschlinger under political-subdivision immunity, given possible willful misconduct? | Reading the complaint, Bauschlinger may have acted with malicious purpose or wanton disregard. | Bauschlinger immune unless outside scope or outside exceptions. | Remand warranted; dismissal reversed to the extent of Bauschlinger, due to potential malicious/wanton conduct. |
| Are the excessive-force claims against the police department/officer cognizable when not named as defendants? | Claims for excessive force should proceed if supported by facts, even if not named. | Claims must be against proper defendants; immunity applies; lack of named parties defeats action. | Assignment rejected as undeveloped; claims against unnamed officers/department not properly raised. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawk v. American Electric Power Co., 2004-Ohio-7042 (3d Dist. 2004) (prosecutorial immunity for acts intimately associated with judicial process)
- LaSalle Bank, N.A. v. Kelly, 2010-Ohio-2668 (9th Dist. 2010) (de novo review on Civ.R. 12(B)(6) immunity defenses)
- Garvey v. Vermilion, 2012-Ohio-1258 (9th Dist. 2012) (definition of malicious purpose and bad faith)
- Schoenfield v. Navarre, 2005-Ohio-6407 (6th Dist. 2005) (bad faith standard for improper conduct)
- Cook v. Hubbard Exempted Village Bd. of Edn., 116 Ohio App.3d 564 (11th Dist. 1996) (definition of wanton conduct and duty of care)