Evans v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.Evans v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Miller, for appellee.
APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio
D E C I S I O N
SADLER, J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, William H. Evans, Jr., appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio dismissing his complaint against defendant-appellee, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} According to the complaint, while appellant was serving a term of incarceration at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, appellant discovered that in 2008, a detainer lodged by the U.S. Marshal‘s Service had been placed in his inmate records. On January 10, 2019, appellant filed the instant complaint in the Court of Claims seeking
{¶ 3} Appellee moved the Court of Claims, pursuant to
II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶ 4} Appellant assigns the following as trial court error:
[1.] Trial Court Erred In Failing To Give [Mandatory] Judicial Notice Under Evid.R. 201(D), As To All Filings In Another Court, Where The Notice Was Pleaded FOR In The Complaint.
[2.] Trial Court Erred In Holding That Plaintiff Failed To State A Claim.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶ 5} “An appellate court reviews a trial court‘s dismissal pursuant to
IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS
{¶ 6} For purposes of clarity, we will begin our discussion with appellant‘s second assignment of error.
A. Appellant‘s Second Assignment of Error
{¶ 7} In appellant‘s second assignment of error, appellant argues the Court of Claims erred when it dismissed his complaint against appellee for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Appellant contends the allegations in the complaint support relief against appellee for the use of a sham legal process as prohibited by
{¶ 8}
(A) A person who is harmed by the use of personal information that relates to him and that is maintained in a personal information system may recover damages in civil action from any person who directly and proximately caused the harm by doing any of the following:
(1) Intentionally maintaining personal information that he knows, or has reason to know, is inaccurate, irrelevant, no longer timely, or incomplete and may result in such harm.
{¶ 9} The Court of Claims determined
{¶ 10}
(A)(1) Except as provided in division (A)(2) of this section or division (C)(2) of section 1347.08 of the Revised Code, the following are exempt from the provisions of this chapter:
* * *
(d) Any state or local agency or part of any state or local agency that is a correction, probation, pardon, or parole authority.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶ 11} There is no dispute that appellee is a state agency that is a correction, probation, pardon, or parole authority. See
{¶ 12}
(B) No person shall, knowing the sham legal process to be sham legal process, do any of the following:
(1) Knowingly issue, display, deliver, distribute, or otherwise use sham legal process;
(2) Knowingly use sham legal process to arrest, detain, search, or seize any person or the property of another person.3
(a) It is not lawfully issued.
(b) It purports to do any of the following:
(i) To be a summons, subpoena, judgment, or order of a court, a law enforcement officer, or a legislative, executive, or administrative body.
{¶ 14} In addition to criminal liability which may be imposed on a person who uses a sham legal process under
A person who violates this section is liable in a civil action to any person harmed by the violation for injury, death, or loss to person or property incurred as a result of the commission of the offense and for reasonable attorney‘s fees, court costs, and other expenses incurred as a result of prosecuting the civil action commenced under this division.
{¶ 15} The Court of Claims determined appellant‘s complaint failed to state a claim for relief under
{¶ 16} This court acknowledges that the presence of inaccurate information in an inmate‘s prison records may, under certain circumstances, adversely affect parole eligibility and consideration. See State ex rel. Keith v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 141 Ohio St.3d 375, 2014-Ohio-4270, ¶ 26 (“in any parole determination involving indeterminate sentencing, the [Ohio Adult Parole Authority] may not rely on information that it knows or has reason to know is inaccurate“). However, appellant‘s complaint does not allege that he has been denied a timely parole hearing or denied parole, during the relevant time period, as a result of the detainer. Furthermore, appellant‘s civil complaint contains no factual allegations which would permit the inference that appellant suffered any other compensable harm arising from the presence of the detainer in his inmate records. Accordingly, even if we
this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree, except that, if the purpose of a violation of division (B)(3) of this section is to commit or facilitate the commission of a felony, a violation of division (B)(3) of this section is a felony of the fourth degree. A violation of division (B)(4) of this section is a felony of the third degree.”
{¶ 17} For the foregoing reasons, we hold the Court of Claims did not err when it dismissed appellant‘s
B. Appellant‘s First Assignment of Error
{¶ 18} In appellant‘s first assignment of error, appellant argues the Court of Claims erred by failing to take judicial notice of all documents filed in Evans I and Evans II. In denying the request, the Court of Claims stated that it “cannot take judicial notice of court proceedings in other cases or of prior proceedings before this court when considering a
{¶ 19} In Charles, this court made the following relevant observations regarding a trial court‘s authority to take judicial notice of certain facts:
Judicial notice concerns a court‘s acceptance, for purpose of convenience and without requiring a party‘s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact. A trial court may take judicial notice of appropriate matters in considering a
Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. However, a trial court cannot take judicial notice of court proceedings in another case. Similarly, a trial court may not take judicial notice of prior proceedings in the court even if the same parties and subject matter are involved. A trial court may only take judicial notice of prior proceedings in the immediate case. The rationale for the rule that a trial court cannot take judicial notice of proceedings in a separate action is that the appellate court cannot review the propriety of the trial court‘s reliance on such prior proceedings because that record is not before the appellate court.
(Internal citations and quotations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 26.
{¶ 21} Here, appellant asked the Court of Claims to take judicial notice of all filings in Evans I and Evans II. Even if we were to conclude appellee‘s
{¶ 22} Moreover, appellant‘s argument in support of his first assignment of error is that the information contained in the documents filed in Evans I and Evans II supports his allegation that the detainer was a sham legal process. Having determined, however, that appellant‘s complaint was subject to dismissal even if such an allegation were accepted as true, appellant has not established prejudicial error arising from the denial of his request for judicial notice.
{¶ 23} For the foregoing reasons, we hold the Court of Claims did not err when it refused to take judicial notice of documents filed in Evans I and Evans II. Accordingly, appellant‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 24} Having overruled appellant‘s two assignments of error, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio.
Judgment affirmed.
DORRIAN and BRUNNER, JJ., concur.
_____________