MICHAEL GALLUZZO v. JOE BRADEN, et al.
C.A. CASE NO. 2011 CA 30
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, OHIO
August 31, 2012
[Cite as Galluzzo v. Braden, 2012-Ohio-3980.]
T.C. NO. 11CV241 (Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court)
Rendered on the 31st day of August, 2012.
MICHAEL GALLUZZO, P. O. Box 710, St. Paris, Ohio 43072
Plaintiff-Appellant
DOUGLAS P. HOLTHUS, Atty. Reg. No. 0037046, 300 East Broad Street, #350, Columbus, Ohio 43215
Attorney for Defendants-Appellees
FROELICH, J.
{¶ 1} Michael A. Galluzzo appeals, pro se, from a judgment of the Champaign County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, which ordered him to pay court costs
{¶ 2} For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
I
{¶ 3} In September 2011, Galluzzo filed a pro se “Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights” against Joe Braden, Joseph Sampson, and Patricia Garrison, who were the Village of St. Paris mayor, administrator, and zoning officer, respectively.1 The complaint alleged that Garrison had “overreach[ed] her authority” as zoning officer and, in doing so, “invaded the privacy and property rights” of Galluzzo and others; Braden and Sampson were her supervisors. Very generally, Galluzzo‘s complaint asserted that he had been wrongly accused of having “trash, debris, and garbage” around his property, for which he had been “threatened * * * with fines and possible incarceration.” He sought damages for “time lost” and “mental and emotional harm” of up to $500,000.
{¶ 4} When he filed his complaint, Galluzzo also filed a Motion to Waive Fees, in which he asserted that he was “currently receiving Social Security retirement benefits and other means tested public assistance.” The trial court acknowledged the filing of the complaint (for which no initial filing fee was collected) and motion to waive fees, and it sent a copy of “an indigency form” to Galluzzo, with instructions that he complete and file it “so that the Court can evaluate the indigency claim.” Ten days later, Galluzzo filed an Affidavit
{¶ 5} In October 2011, Braden, Sampson, and Garrison filed a Motion to Dismiss Galluzzo‘s complaint, on the basis that they were entitled to immunity pursuant to
{¶ 6} In November 2011, the trial court filed an entry finding that Galluzzo was “not indigent under current conditions for the purpose of court cost payment.” It ordered him to pay costs “at the minimum rate of $10.00 per month,” with the first payment due in late November. Although the trial court‘s entry did not include the total amount of costs owed, it appears from the docket sheet that costs were assessed in the amount of $292.00.
{¶ 7} On appeal, Galluzzo argues that the trial court erred in failing to waive costs because his Affidavit of Indigency was “uncontested” and because the trial court did not consider “the totality of [his] economic circumstances.”
II
{¶ 8} As a preliminary matter, Galluzzo contends that the trial court should have given him wide latitude in the filing of his “pleading and papers,” because he was not represented by an attorney. We have repeatedly held, however, that “[l]itigants who choose
{¶ 9} Moreover, the trial court‘s decision in this case was not based on any procedural or substantive defect in Galluzzo‘s filings which might have been linked to his decision to represent himself. For example, he did not miss a filing or fail to provide documentation of his claims. Indeed, he filed his Complaint without a filing fee or deposit, and the trial court provided him with the paperwork he needed (the Affidavit of Indigency form); he completed and returned it to the court in a timely manner. The assessment of costs in this case does not appear to have been affected in any way by Galluzzo‘s self-representation or by any lack of “leniency” by the court.
III
{¶ 10} Galluzzo contends that, under the totality of his “economic circumstances,” he was entitled to a waiver of court costs.
{¶ 11} “While courts traditionally waive filing fees and costs for indigent persons in order to promote the interests of justice, it is within the court‘s discretion whether
{¶ 12} In overruling Galluzzo‘s motion to waive fees, the trial court considered his affidavit and stated that Galluzzo was “not indigent under current conditions for the purpose of court costs payment.” The record does not contain the criteria for a finding of indigency in Champaign County, especially as that finding relates to the payment of court costs, but we have no basis to question the trial court‘s conclusion that Galluzzo did not qualify. The source of Galluzzo‘s income – Social Security – did not, in itself, provide a compelling basis for the waiver of costs, as his motion suggested. Moreover, the trial court‘s order recognized Galluzzo‘s limited means by allowing him to pay a minimum of only $10 per month toward the costs, giving him an extended period over which to satisfy the obligation. Neither the requirement that costs be paid nor the manner in which the trial court ordered that they be paid was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.
{¶ 13} Galluzzo‘s assignments of error are overruled.
{¶ 14} The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
FAIN, J. and RICE, J., concur.
(Hon. Cynthia Westcott Rice, Eleventh District Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio).
Copies mailed to:
Michael Galluzzo
Douglas P. Holthus
Hon. Roger B. Wilson