Facts
- Vincel Chambers is a pretrial detainee who filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations related to prison conditions [lines="15-16"].
- The district court granted summary judgment dismissing Chambers' action due to his failure to exhaust available administrative remedies [lines="16-17"].
- The court emphasized the requirement that no action could be brought under § 1983 without exhausting administrative remedies [lines="22-24"].
- Chambers contended that he had exhausted the necessary administrative procedures prior to filing his lawsuit [lines="21"].
- The appellate court reviewed the record and determined that no genuine dispute existed regarding the exhaustion of remedies [lines="20-21"].
Issues
- Whether the district court erred in dismissing Chambers' § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies [lines="15-16"].
Holdings
- The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Chambers did not exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing his lawsuit [lines="28"].
OPINION
Frieda Aaron et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The Supreme Court of Ohio, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 24AP-232
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
November 26, 2024
[Cite as Aaron v. Supreme Court of Ohio, 2024-Ohio-5616.]
EDELSTEIN, J.
(Ct. of Cl. No. 2023-00728JD) (ACCELERATED CALENDAR)
Rendered on November 26, 2024
On brief: Phillip F. Cameron for appellants. Argued: Alan Statman.
On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, Lauren D. Emery, and Stacy Hannan for appellee. Argued: Lauren D. Emery.
APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio
EDELSTEIN, J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiffs-appellants, Frieda Aaron et al., appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, The Supreme Court of Ohio. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} Appellants are hundreds of individuals who have filed medical negligence claims against Dr. Atiq Durrani in Ohio courts. Appellants allege their cases were all designated as complex litigation and none of their cases were resolved within 36 months from the date of filing. The Rules of Superintendence for the courts of Ohio provide that the judge assigned to a case designated as “complex litigation * * * shall have thirty-six months from the date of the filing to terminate the case.”
{¶ 4} Appellee moved to dismiss appellants’ initial complaint pursuant to
{¶ 5} On November 27, 2023, in case No. 2023-00728JD, appellants filed another complaint alleging appellee committed “negligence” (rather than intentional negligence) by “not resolving through trial 580 claims against fleeing felon, Dr. Atiq Durrani, under Rule 42(c)” (“subsequent complaint“).1 (Compl., Ex. 2.) Appellants again noted their claims against Dr. Durrani “were filed in 2013 and none of them were timely resolved or have not been resolved at all after ten years.” (Compl., Ex. 2.)
{¶ 6} On December 20, 2023, appellee moved for summary judgment asserting that res judicata barred appellants’ subsequent complaint. Appellee supported its motion for summary judgment with copies of appellants’ initial complaint and the court‘s November 14, 2023 decision and entry dismissing the initial complaint pursuant to
{¶ 7} On January 3, 2024, appellants filed a response to appellee‘s motion for summary judgment. Appellants stated that, because their initial complaint alleged a claim
{¶ 8} On January 26, 2024, the court issued a decision and entry granting appellee‘s motion for summary judgment. The court found appellants’ subsequent complaint involved the same parties as appellants’ initial complaint, the subsequent complaint raised “claims that were or could have been litigated” in the initial action, and the subsequent complaint arose “out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject” of the initial complaint. (Decision at 6.) The court determined that “[c]laim preclusion therefore applie[d]” to appellants’ subsequent complaint and found appellee entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law. (Decision at 6.)
II. Discussion
{¶ 9} Appellants appeal from the trial court‘s entry granting appellee‘s motion for summary judgment. However, appellants’ brief does not contain a statement of assignments of error for this court to review.
{¶ 10} As such, a court of appeals has the authority to dismiss an appeal that fails to set forth assignments of error. Kemba Fin. Credit Union v. Covington, 10th Dist. No. 20AP-487, 2021-Ohio-2120, ¶ 8, citing CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Asamoah, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-212, 2012-Ohio-4422, ¶ 5. See Cloyes at ¶ 14; Covington at ¶ 11. Nevertheless, we may overlook this shortcoming and address the merits of the present appeal. See Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Vigue, 10th Dist. No. 16AP-816, 2017-Ohio-7037, ¶ 8; State v.
{¶ 11} Appellants contend the trial court erred by granting appellee‘s motion for summary judgment based on res judicata. An appellate court reviews a grant of summary judgment under a de novo standard. Capella III, LLC v. Wilcox, 190 Ohio App.3d 133, 2010-Ohio-4746, ¶ 16 (10th Dist.), citing Andersen v. Highland House Co., 93 Ohio St.3d 547, 548 (2001). “[D]e novo appellate review means that the court of appeals independently reviews the record and affords no deference to the trial court‘s decision.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) Holt v. State, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-214, 2010-Ohio-6529, ¶ 9. Summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party demonstrates: (1) no genuine issue of material fact exists, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made.
{¶ 12} Pursuant to
{¶ 13} The doctrine of res judicata “promotes principles of finality and judicial economy by preventing endless relitigation of an issue upon which there was already a full or fair opportunity to be heard.” State v. Jama, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-210, 2012-Ohio-2466, ¶ 45,
{¶ 14} “Claim preclusion prevents subsequent actions, by the same parties or their privies, based upon any claim arising out of a transaction that was the subject matter of a previous action.” O‘Nesti at ¶ 6, citing Fort Frye Teachers Assn., OEA/NEA v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 81 Ohio St.3d 392, 395 (1998). Claim preclusion applies when: (1) there was a prior valid judgment on the merits, (2) the present action involves the same parties as the prior action (or the parties in the present action are in privity with the parties in the prior action), (3) the present action raises claims that were or could have been litigated in the prior action, and (4) both actions arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. Daniel v. Williams, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-155, 2014-Ohio-273, ¶ 18, citing Dehlendorf v. Ritchey, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-87, 2012-Ohio-5193, ¶ 12. Thus, “[w]here a claim could have been litigated in the previous suit, claim preclusion also bars subsequent actions on that matter.” O‘Nesti at ¶ 6, citing Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 382 (1995). Accord State ex rel. Schachter v. Ohio Public Emps. Retirement Bd., 121 Ohio St.3d 526, 2009-Ohio-1704, ¶ 27. Whether the doctrine of res judicata applies in a case is a question of law subject to de novo review. Arth Brass & Aluminum Castings, Inc. v. Ryan, 10th Dist. No. 07AP-811, 2008-Ohio-1109, ¶ 7.
{¶ 15} Appellants contend their initial complaint “was not dismissed with prejudice and was not a final and appealable order.” (Emphasis omitted.) (Appellants’ Brief at 7.) Thus, appellants appear to assert the court‘s dismissal of their initial complaint pursuant to
{¶ 16} The court‘s November 14, 2023 decision granting appellee‘s
{¶ 17} Appellants claim the court erred by granting appellee summary judgment based on res judicata because the “issue[] of negligence was never litigated” in their initial action. (Appellants’ Brief at 5-6.) However, ” ‘an existing final judgment or decree between the parties to litigation is conclusive as to all claims which were or might have been litigated in a first lawsuit.’ ” (Emphasis sic.) Grava at 382, quoting Rogers v. Whitehall, 25 Ohio St.3d 67, 69 (1986). “The doctrine of res judicata requires a plaintiff to present every ground for relief in the first action, or be forever barred from asserting it.” Natl. Amusements, Inc. v. Springdale, 53 Ohio St.3d 60, 62 (1990), citing Rogers at 69. Appellants’ initial and subsequent complaints involved the same parties and both actions arose out of the same transaction or occurrence, i.e., the hundreds of medical negligence cases filed against Dr. Durrani that were not resolved within 36 months. Accordingly, appellants could have raised their claim for negligence premised on a violation of
{¶ 18} Appellants lastly contend that the circumstances of the present case warrant an exception to the doctrine of res judicata. (Appellants’ Brief at 10.) “The binding effect of res judicata has been held not to apply when fairness and justice would not support it.” State ex rel. Estate of Miles v. Piketon, 121 Ohio St.3d 231, 2009-Ohio-786, ¶ 30. Thus, the doctrine of res judicata ” ‘should be qualified or rejected when its application would contravene an overriding public policy or result in a manifest injustice.’ ” AJZ‘s Hauling, L.L.C. v. Trunorth Warranty Programs of N. Am., 174 Ohio St.3d 241, 2023-Ohio-3097,
{¶ 19} While exceptions to res judicata “may apply in some extraordinary situations,” courts generally will not find an exception to the doctrine “when the parties had a full and fair opportunity to be heard on an issue, the trial court issued a final, appealable order determining that issue, the parties failed to pursue a direct appeal or other available remedies to challenge that court‘s order,” and the record contains no evidence of “bad-faith acts” by the parties. AJZ‘s Hauling, L.L.C. at ¶ 18-19. See also Natl. Amusements, Inc. at 62-63, citing Friedenthal, Kane & Miller, Civil Procedure, 656, Section 14.8 (1985); Thyroff v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 10th Dist. No. 15AP-1043, 2016-Ohio-4634, ¶ 34. Appellants had the opportunity to raise their negligence claim in their initial complaint and the record contains no evidence of bad faith acts by the parties. As such, appellants have not convinced this court the application of res judicata would be unjust in the present case.
{¶ 20} Moreover, appellants’ claims for intentional negligence and negligence were both premised on appellee‘s alleged failure to ensure the actions against Dr. Durrani terminated within 36 months from filing pursuant to
{¶ 21} In their brief, appellants note the maxim “[j]ustice delayed is justice denied.” (Appellants’ Brief at 2.) Appellants are unquestionably entitled to have their day in court and, for some appellants, that day is long overdue. However, the present action was not the appropriate avenue for appellants to obtain the relief they seek. Because res judicata barred
III. Conclusion
{¶ 22} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio.
Judgment affirmed.
MENTEL, P.J. and DORRIAN, J., concur.