Thompson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Clerk of Courts
2020 Ohio 382
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- In Sept. 2017 Thompson mailed an "Accusation by Affidavit" under R.C. 2935.09/.10 alleging perjury by a witness in his 2012 criminal trial.
- Thompson alleges the Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts misfiled the affidavit as a civil complaint and charged him $118 in filing fees.
- After several unsuccessful motions in the criminal court (judge found motions failed Evid.R. 201(B)), Thompson filed a civil complaint May 8, 2019 seeking $100,000 for the alleged misfiling.
- Cuyahoga County moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing among other grounds that the county is immune under R.C. Chapter 2744.
- The trial court granted the 12(B)(6) dismissal on immunity grounds; Thompson appealed. The appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the County Clerk is immune from Thompson's tort claim under R.C. Chapter 2744 | Thompson argued the clerk misfiled a statutory affidavit and caused damages, so county liability should attach | County argued the clerk performed a governmental function and is immune under R.C. 2744.02 absent an applicable exception | Held: Clerk is a political subdivision performing a governmental function; no R.C. 2744.02(B) exception applies → immunity; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the trial court violated due process / misapplied R.C. 2935.09/.10 or abused discretion in dismissing the complaint | Thompson claimed denial of procedural and substantive due process and misapplication of the probable-cause standard in R.C. 2935 statutes | County maintained dismissal proper because immunity bars the suit regardless of Thompson’s procedural complaints | Held: Court rejected Thompson’s arguments as lacking merit; dismissal stands under immunity analysis |
| Whether the filing fee/charge was an illegal court cost entitling Thompson to relief | Thompson contended the $118 fee for attempting to report a crime was unlawful and violated due process/equal protection | County treated the fee factual/administrative and maintained immunity defense to civil damages | Held: Appellate court treated this as supporting Thompson’s tort claim but resolved case on immunity; no relief granted |
| Whether the appeal was frivolous warranting App.R. 23 sanctions | N/A (Thompson appealed) | State asked for sanctions, arguing the appeal presented no reasonable question for review | Held: Court found immunity question was reasonably presented and denied sanctions under App.R. 23 |
Key Cases Cited
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (establishes de novo review for Civ.R. 12(B)(6) rulings on appeal)
- Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 95 Ohio St.3d 416 (applies standards governing motions to dismiss)
- Grey v. Walgreen Co., 197 Ohio App.3d 418 (standard that dismissal is proper when plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling relief)
- Rankin v. Cuyahoga Cty. Dept. of Children & Family Servs., 118 Ohio St.3d 392 (outlines R.C. 2744 three-tier political-subdivision immunity analysis)
- Lambert v. Clancy, 125 Ohio St.3d 231 (operation of a clerk of courts’ office is a governmental function)
- Talbott v. Fountas, 16 Ohio App.3d 226 (defines frivolous appeal as one presenting no reasonable question for review)