Hоuston Byrd, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ohio Inspector General, Randall J. Meyer, State of Ohio et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21AP-578 (C.P.C. No. 20CV-8271)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
May 31, 2022
[Cite as Byrd v. Ohio Inspector Gen., 2022-Ohio-1827.]
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
Rendered on May 31, 2022
On brief: Houston Byrd, Jr., pro se.
On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, Iris Jin, and Michael A. Walton, for appellees.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
PER CURIAM.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Houston Byrd, Jr., appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his complaint against defendants-appellees the Ohio Inspector General, Randall J. Meyer, Stаte of Ohio et al. (collectively “appellees“). For the following reasons we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On December 23, 2020, appellant filed a complaint in the common pleas court. The caption of the complaint names as defendants “Ohio Inspector General, Randall J. Meyer, State of Ohio, et. al.” (Compl. at 1.) The “certificate of mailing” at the bottom of the complaint certifies the complaint was mailed to “the Ohio Inspector General by USPS Certified Mailing Ohio Inspector General, 30 East Broad Street, Ste 2940, Columbus, Ohio
{¶ 3} On January 22, 2021, appellant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
{¶ 4} On January 26, 2021, appellees filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
{¶ 5} Appelleеs argued the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to
{¶ 6} On October 15, 2021, the trial court granted appellees’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The trial court held “[p]laintiff proports to allege that he filed two complaints with Defendant Ohio Inspector General against the Ohio Department of Administrative Services and the Ohio Department of Insurance. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated his constitutional rights and failed to perform its duties. The Court finds that Plaintiff‘s Complaint fails to set forth allеgations in a way sufficient enough to put Defendants on notice of the nature of the action as required by
{¶ 7} On October 21, 2021, appellant filed an “Objection to October 15, 2021, Order Request for Findings and an En Banc Review by another jurisdiction.”2 On November 8, 2021, appellant filed a “Notice of Appeal for an En Banc Review.”
II. Assignments of Error
{¶ 8} Appellant appeals and assigns the following assignments of error for our review:3
ASSIGNMENT ERROR I. Did, the IG comply with
ORC § 121.42 and121.44 Rеports of investigations? Did the IG arbitrarily and willfully violate Article II of the Ohio Constitution,ORC § 3.07 Misconduct in office - forfeiture,ORC 2921.45 Interfering with civil rights andPublic Law 96-303 , Code of Ethics for Government Service? The IG has three (3) complaints before them. No acknowledgment whether there was an OMISSION or NOT for documented complaints against 1.) Ohio Department of Administrative Services, 2.) Ohio Dental Board, the medical professional ethically admitted to and documented a medical injury; yet, the OIG alleged there was NO OMISSIONs and 3.) Ohio Department of Insurance. The trial court failed to impartially address the non-compliance nor review relevant exhibits before the OIG and Ohio Department of Administrative Services.ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II. If, the IG willfully neglected their duties is the State required to provide representations at
taxpayers’ expenses? See, Appellant‘s January 27, 2021, Objection to Motion to Dismiss, page 4. ASSGNMENT OF ERROR III. Why isn‘t this matter in Default?
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV. The trail court‘s noncompliance to Appellant Byrd‘s, paid for, petition for an “Outside Independent Judge Review(s) Requested” Visiting Judge a Prejudicial error?
(Sic passim.) We further construe appellant‘s brief as raising a fifth assignment of error—assigning that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint. (See Appellant‘s Brief at 4-5.)
III. Analysis
{¶ 9} As a preliminary matter, we begin by observing appellant‘s notation on the front of his brief “en banc review or outside review.” At this time, the criteria for en banc review pursuant to
{¶ 10} In the first and second assignments of error, appellant addrеsses and asks this court to opine regarding the merits of his allegations against appellees and his allegations against the Department of Insurance, Department of Administrative Services, and the Ohio Dental Board. As the trial court dismissed this case, and did not decide any questions involving the merits of the allegations, these assignments of error are not ripe for review and we decline to opine regarding the same in the first instance.
{¶ 11} In the fourth assignment of error, appellant inquires why the trial court did not comply with his request for an outside or visiting judge. Appellant‘s complaint, motion for judgment on the pleadings, and response to appellees’ motion dismiss do not indicate he pursued the filing of affidavits of disqualification pursuant to
{¶ 12} In the third assignment of error, appellant inquires “[w]hy isn‘t this matter in [d]efault?”
{¶ 13} In the fifth assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court erred in granting appellees’ motion to dismiss pursuant tо
{¶ 14} Ohio is a notice pleading state. Pursuant to notice pleading, ” ‘[appellant was] required to allege sufficient facts to give [appellees] notice of [his] claim.’ ” Wiltz v. Accountancy Bd. of Ohio, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-645, 2015-Ohio-2493, ¶ 13, quoting San Allen, Inc. v. Buehrer, 8th Dist. No. 99786, 2014-Ohio-2071, ¶ 84, referencing Thatcher v. Lauffer Ravines, L.L.C., 10th Dist. No. 11AP-851, 2012-Ohio-6193, ¶ 43-48 (“Although claim was ‘not spelled out in the complaint by explicit reference to the appropriate statutory sections,’ ” the case could nevertheless procеed on the theory that defendant violated various statutory provisions if the allegations in the complaint ” ‘provided fair notice to the defendants that the action could proceed on this theory.’ “). ” ‘Notice pleading under
{¶ 15} From his complaint, it aрpears appellant is alleging that the Ohio Inspector General: (1) committed misconduct in office, (2) interfered with civil rights, and (3) violated
The Office has knowingly and willfully violated the Ohio Constitution, there must be penalties pursuant to Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 3.07 Misconduct in office – forfeiture, ORC 2921.45 Interfering with civil rights and Public Law 96-303, Code of Ethics for Government Service.
* * *
There are several Constitutional legal and valid complaints before the Ohio‘s Inspector General (IG), who has arbitrarily and capriciously refused to file and acknowledge, in particular, our March 23 and August 12, 2020 complaints against the Ohio Department of Insurance and a January 21, 2020 complaint against the Ohio Department of Administrative Services.
(Sic passim.) (Compl. at 1-3.)
{¶ 16} Further, appellant appears to request “reparations,” punitive damages pursuant to
{¶ 17} In addition, the сomplaint presents many “issues for review” and “questions” regarding the merits of: (1) the allegations against the Ohio Inspector General, and (2) the merits of the complaints appellant allegedly filed with the Ohio Inspector General against the Department of Insurance and the Department of Administrative Services. However,
{¶ 18} We find the trial court did not err in dismissing for failure to state a claim the claim that the Inspector General violated Ohio‘s
{¶ 19} We also find the trial court did not err in dismissing for failurе to state a claim the broad allegation that the Inspector General violated the Constitution. Appellant refers to “Article II” and “Article II.38.” As best we can decipher, it appears appellant is suggesting an impeachment process for the public officials referred to in the complaint for reasons that they allegedly violated
Laws shall be passed providing for the prоmpt removal from office, upon complaint and hearing, of all officers, including state officers, judges and members of the general assembly, for any misconduct involving moral turpitude or for other cause provided by law; and this method of removal shall be in addition to impeachment or other method of removal authorized by the constitution.
This provision directs Ohio‘s General Assembly to pass laws providing for the prompt removal of office of the officers enumerated therein. Therefore, appellant failed to state a claim. We also note that appellant failed to state a claim under
{¶ 20} We also find the trial court did not err in dismissing for failure to state a claim the allegation that the Inspector General violated
Any person holding office in this state, or in any municipal corporation, county, or subdivision thereof, coming within the official classification in
Section 38 of Article II, Ohio Constitution , who willfully and flagrantly exercises authority or power not authorized by law, refuses or willfully neglects to enforce the law or to perform any official duty imposed upon him by law, or is guilty of gross neglect of duty, gross immorality, drunkenness, misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance is guilty of misconduct in office. Upon complaint and hearing in the manner provided for insections 3.07 to3.10 , inclusive, of the Revised Code, such person shall have judgment of forfeiture of said office with all its emoluments entered thereon against him, creating thereby in said office a vacancy to be filled as prescribed by law. The proceedings provided for in such sections are in addition to impeachment and other methods of removal authorized by law, and such sections do not divest the governor or any other authority of the jurisdiction given in removal proceedings.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶ 21} Finally, we find the trial court did not err in dismissing for failure to state a claim the allegation that appellees violated
(A) No public servant, under color of the public servant‘s office, employment, or authority, shall knowingly deprive, or conspire or attempt to deprive any person of a constitutional or statutory right.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of interfering with civil rights, a misdemeanor of the first degree.
{¶ 22}
(1) Preventing officer from performing duties. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from disсharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district or place, where his duties as an officer are required to
be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties; (2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attеnded or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire, or go in disguise on the highway or оn the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice-President, or as a member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or
deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen оf the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages, occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
{¶ 23} The
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforcе any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
{¶ 24} Appellant broadly states that:
[He] submits this complaint due to the State‘s violation of one‘s guaranteed rights pursuant to the U.S. and Ohio‘s Constitutions. State governments create state cоurts through the enactment of statutes or by constitutional provisions for the purpose of enforcing state law. Public officials have specific obligations to taxpayers; therefore, their actions of a few have sullied the confidence of taxpayers. We are submitting this corroborated and legal complaint due to the Ohio Inspector General (OIG), Director Department of Administrаtive Services (DAS) and other public officials’ failure to execute pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 3.07 Misconduct in office – forfeiture and Article II of the Ohio Constitution as late as November 18, 2020.
(Sic passim.) (Compl. at 1.) There is no indication in the complaint which specific constitutional or statutory rights appellant has allegedly been deprived of and the complaint does not set forth operative facts sufficient to discern and for appellees to be placed on notice of the same.4 Therefore, appellant failed to state a claim.
{¶ 25} Accordingly, the fifth assignment of error is overruled.
IV. Conclusion
{¶ 26} For the reasons stated above, we find appellant‘s first and second assignments of error not ripe for review and we decline to address them. We overrule appellant‘s third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error. Accordingly, the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
DORRIAN, JAMISON, and NELSON, JJ., concur.
Nelson, J., retired, formerly of the Tenth Appellate District, Assigned to active duty under authority of the Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 6(C).