Arega v. ColemanArega v. Coleman
Richard C. Pfeiffer, Jr., City Attorney, and Westley M. Phillips, for appellees Michael B. Coleman, Kimberley Jacobs, and Jason Sprague.
Ron O‘Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Jesse W. Armstrong, for appellee Zach Scott.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
LUPER SCHUSTER, J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Tizazu F. Arega appeals from two orders of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his civil action against four named individual defendants, all of whom are elected officials or local government employees.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} Arega initiated this action with a complaint stating claims in “fraud, professional tort, negligent tort, duty and/or contract, negligent, civil right and intentional infliction of emotional distresses.” (Sic passim.) (Complaint, 1.) Arega also names his minor daughter as a plaintiff, although subsequent pleadings by the parties do
{¶ 3} The facts of Arega‘s criminal conviction are procedurally pertinent here and we will briefly recount them. On March 1, 2011, a Franklin County grand jury indicted Arega on two counts of rape and one count of sexual battery. The charges arose from accusations brought by a patient at a nursing and rehabilitation facility where Arega worked as a nursing assistant. The victim was a legally blind female who was partially immobilized by a severe leg injury, and the conduct giving rise to the charges took place on September 1, 2010. Arega‘s jury trial began on January 30, 2012, and, on February 3, 2012, the jury returned guilty verdicts on the sexual battery charge and one count of rape. On March 1, 2012, the trial court sentenced Arega to nine years’ imprisonment with accompanying sex-offender registration requirements.
{¶ 4} Arega then filed his direct criminal appeal to this court. In that appeal, we reversed only the sexual battery conviction, affirmed the rape conviction, and determined that no modification of sentence was necessary. State v. Arega, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-263, 2012-Ohio-5774. Arega filed a subsequent application to reopen his appeal based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel, which we denied. State v. Arega, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-263 (June 10, 2014) (memorandum decision).
{¶ 5} Arega then filed a petition in this court on January 7, 2015, seeking a writ of procedendo to compel the respondent, a judge of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, to act on a pending motion in the criminal case. We later dismissed the petition at Arega‘s request. State ex rel. Arega v. Brown, 10th Dist. No. 15AP-7 (Apr. 2, 2015) (journal entry of dismissal).
II. Assignments of Error
{¶ 7} Arega brings the following “propositions of law” on appeal, which we interpret as assignments of error in compliance with
[1.] Appellants contend that the trial court erred in failing to rule fraud perpetuated by defendants-appellees Det. Sprague et al., and in this case unconstitutional and the evidences adduced to support that claims.
[2.] Appellant contends that the trial cour erred in granting motion to dismiss for defendant-appellees Det. Sprague and in failing to apply the discovery rule so as to render his claims timely.
[3.] Appellant contend that the trial court erred in failing to apply the
R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(A) and (B) that removes appellees’ immunity.
(Sic passim.)
III. Discussion
{¶ 8} Before addressing the assignments of error, we note that Arega has not raised any argument on appeal regarding the status of his minor daughter in the case, nor do the trial court‘s orders specifically mention her claims in its disposition of the case. We nonetheless find that the daughter‘s claims were properly dismissed. Aside from any questions regarding Arega‘s standing as a pro se, non-attorney litigant to bring an action on his daughter‘s behalf, we find that the complaint does not sufficiently articulate claim
{¶ 9} Turning to Arega‘s assignments of error addressing his own claims, the first two of these assert that the trial court erred in various ways when applying the statute of limitations. In his third assignment of error, Arega argues that the court failed to apply
{¶ 10} However, we do not reach the issues raised because we find that an additional ground argued before the trial court mandates dismissal of the case, even though that additional ground was not relied on by the trial court. As defendants reiterate on appeal, Arega has failed to comply with statutory requirements for inmates filing a civil action against government entities or employees.
At the time that an inmate commences a civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee, the inmate shall file with the court an affidavit that contains a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action that the inmate has filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court.
{¶ 11} “Compliance with
{¶ 12} In sum, the record in this case confirms that Arega failed to file his
{¶ 13} We accordingly hold that the trial court did not err in dismissing Arega‘s complaint and render moot his three assignments of error. The judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
KLATT and BRUNNER, JJ., concur.