2017 Ohio 9347
Oh. Ct. App. 11th Dist. Trumbu...2017Background
- Trumbull County Prosecuting Attorney Dennis Watkins filed a Complaint to Designate Alfonsia Perry a vexatious litigator under R.C. 2323.52 on Nov. 29, 2016.
- Perry moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), asserting the one-year limitation had expired and that the alleged conduct was not a civil action under the statute; the trial court denied the motion.
- Watkins moved for summary judgment; Perry filed an answer and a counterclaim arguing R.C. 2323.52 (as amended) is unconstitutional (division (G) limiting appeals).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Watkins, finding Perry’s numerous postconviction filings (over 70 documents) constituted civil petitions and that Perry met the statutory definition of a vexatious litigator.
- Perry appealed, raising three assignments of error: denial of the motion to dismiss (statute of limitations), court’s sua sponte consideration of his counterclaim on constitutionality during summary judgment, and whether postconviction filings may support a vexatious-litigant finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether postconviction proceedings count as "civil action(s)" for R.C. 2323.52's one-year limitations period | Watkins: postconviction petitions are collateral civil actions that toll/trigger the limitation period | Perry: postconviction motions/petitions are not civil actions and thus cannot extend the one-year period | Held: Postconviction proceedings are petitions for postconviction relief (civil in nature) and fall within R.C. 2323.52's scope; limitations challenge fails |
| Whether the trial court erred by addressing Perry's constitutional counterclaim sua sponte during summary judgment | Watkins: constitutionality of the statute was squarely before the court in his motion for summary judgment | Perry: court improperly decided a counterclaim without a pending motion and without notice | Held: No reversible error — the constitutionality issue was raised in Watkins' motion; Perry had the opportunity to oppose and lacked standing to press the particular constitutional theory |
| Whether postconviction filings in a criminal case may support a vexatious-litigant determination | Watkins: vexatious conduct includes filings, motions, and other actions in civil proceedings, including postconviction petitions | Perry: statute only applies to commencement of civil actions; postconviction collateral attacks should not be converted into civil actions to label him vexatious | Held: Statute covers a broad range of conduct in civil actions; postconviction petitions and related filings may be considered in a vexatious-litigant finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 109 Ohio St.3d 491 (procedure for dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (de novo review of Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (postconviction proceedings are collateral civil attacks)
- Marshall v. Aaron, 15 Ohio St.3d 48 (limitations on sua sponte summary-judgment entry)
- Mayer v. Bristow, 91 Ohio St.3d 3 (purpose of vexatious-litigator statute and preventing frivolous conduct)
- County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 (standing to raise constitutional challenges)