2017 Ohio 4005
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Plaintiffs Donald Vos and Dennis Wallace sued the State of Ohio, Governor Kasich, Attorney General DeWine, Ohio EPA, and Ohio Environmental Review Appeals Commission (Ohio ERAC), seeking closure of the Negley landfill and $5,000,000 each in damages based on assertions that 9/11 victims' remains were dumped there and state officials covered it up.
- Complaint sought both monetary damages and various orders: replace the Ohio EPA director, recreate Ohio ERAC with restrictions on appointees, void landfill permits, excavate and inspect landfill contents, close the landfill and convert it to a burial park, and create a maintenance fund.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(6), arguing (among other things) that claims for money damages against the State fall within the Court of Claims’ exclusive jurisdiction and that plaintiffs failed to state viable claims.
- Trial court granted three dismissal orders: Ohio ERAC (Dec. 1, 2016), Ohio EPA (Dec. 6, 2016), and Governor/Attorney General/State (Dec. 8, 2016); monetary claims were dismissed without prejudice, other claims dismissed with prejudice as appropriate.
- Plaintiffs appealed the Dec. 1 and Dec. 8 orders; appellate court identified briefing deficiencies and procedural defects (plaintiffs did not appeal the Dec. 6 order) but addressed the merits and affirmed both appealed dismissals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether common pleas court had subject-matter jurisdiction over monetary claims against the State | Vos/Wallace sought monetary relief in common pleas court for alleged denial of due process/equal protection | State/ERAC: Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over money damages against the State | Dismissal affirmed: Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over such monetary claims |
| Whether complaint stated a viable claim for relief (12(B)(6)) | Plaintiffs alleged denial of due process/equal protection and bias by agencies and officials | Defendants: complaint fails to state a claim and lacks factual support; some requested relief is unavailable | Dismissal affirmed: complaint legally insufficient and failed to plead facts showing entitlement to relief |
| Whether requested equitable relief (replacement/removal of officials, voiding permits) was available | Plaintiffs requested removal/replacement of Ohio EPA director and Ohio ERAC members and voiding permits | Defendants: courts cannot order the Governor to appoint or remove specific people; permits and prior ERAC adjudication are final | Held: relief unavailable — appointment/removal decisions are discretionary; permit issues already adjudicated (collateral attack barred) |
| Whether plaintiffs’ claims were effectively §1983 civil-rights claims against state entities | Plaintiffs denied asserting §1983 claims on appeal | Defendants: §1983 cannot be brought against state agencies as “persons” | Held: Plaintiffs disavowed §1983; in any event pleading was unclear and inadequate to invoke relief outside Court of Claims |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (12/1975) (standard for Civ.R. 12(B)(6): dismissal only when no set of facts would permit recovery)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (1988) (complaint allegations must be accepted as true and inferences drawn for plaintiff on 12(B)(6))
- York v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143 (1991) (same rule regarding dismissal standard)
- Measles v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, 128 Ohio St.3d 458 (2011) (Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions against the State for money damages sounding in law)
- Santos v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 101 Ohio St.3d 74 (2004) (R.C. 2743.03 preserves other courts' jurisdiction for equitable relief when monetary relief is not sought)
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995) (court will not permit collateral attack on final administrative judgments)
- State ex rel. Gilligan v. Hoddinott, 36 Ohio St.2d 127 (1973) (courts should not interfere with Governor's discretionary executive functions absent clear abuse)