James Hinkle, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Judge Stephanie Mingo, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 23AP-660
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
April 30, 2024
2024-Ohio-1665
(C.P.C. No. 23CV-4833) (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Rendered on April 30, 2024
On brief: James Hinkle, pro se. Argued: James Hinkle.
On brief: Zach Klein, City Attorney, and Aaron D. Epstein, for appellee. Argued: Aaron D. Epstein.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
PER CURIAM.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, James Hinkle, pro se, appeals from a decision and order of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting the motion to dismiss of defendant-appellee, Judge Stephanie Mingo. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On July 10, 2023, Hinkle filed a complaint against Judge Mingo, alleging Judge Mingo lacked jurisdiction to issue a judgment against him in a separate matter in the Franklin County Municipal Court, Environmental Division (“the nuisance case“). The nuisance case involved a nuisance complaint initiated by the City of Columbus against a property Hinkle owned. Judge Mingo presided over the nuisance case and, on January 16, 2020, issued a judgment entry finding the defendants, including Hinkle, in contempt of court for failing to abate a nuisance. Hinkle filed a direct appeal from the judgment entry
{¶ 3} Judge Mingo filed a
II. Assignments of Error
{¶ 4} Hinkle assigns the following four assignments of error for our review:
[I.] Failure to hear the case in the lower court undermines the courts’ original jurisdiction. It was the Court of Common Pleas authority to hear and decide on the case for the first time before any appellate review occurs. Here I was denied access to the courts.
[II.] The court judge additionally erred as even though the courts agreed with me that I was right, “Although factual allegations in the complaint are taken to be true...” they refuse to do anything about it, as in my request to dismissing the case in the municipal court with prejudice.
[III.] Judge failed to address the dismissal as with or without prejudice. “Therefore, as Hinkle has not alleged a cause of action or requested relief which this Court can grant, the Complaint must be DISMISSED, pursuant to Civil Rule 12(B)(6).
[IV.] The Judge involved in the municipal case would need to know who the plaintiff/claimant is as if the plaintiff does not show to court, the courts are capable of dismissing the case with prejudice. The plaintiff has to show up to court, as the plaintiff must still prove what he or she is entitled to if anything.
III. Discussion
{¶ 5} Hinkle‘s four assignments of error are interrelated, and we address them jointly. Taken together, Hinkle‘s four assignments of error assert the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint pursuant to
{¶ 6} Under
{¶ 7} The complaint does not identify an express cause of action. In the caption of the complaint, however, Hinkle states Judge Mingo lacked subject-matter jurisdiction in the nuisance case. To the extent Hinkle intended to assert a genuine challenge to Judge Mingo‘s subject-matter jurisdiction, his remedy was to raise that issue in a direct appeal to this court from the nuisance case or file an appropriate original action. See
{¶ 8} Despite the framing of his complaint as a challenge to the municipal court‘s jurisdiction, it is clear from the body of the complaint that Hinkle seeks review of the merits of Judge Mingo‘s ruling in the nuisance case, asserting Judge Mingo erred in her interpretation and application of
{¶ 9} Additionally, to the extent the complaint seeks the name and address of the original complainer in the nuisance case, Hinkle does not identify any cause of action that would require the disclosure of such information, nor does the complaint allege Judge Mingo is in possession of such information or is under a legal obligation to disclose the information. The request for information, without more, does not state a claim for relief.
{¶ 10} Lastly, we note that while Hinkle assigns as error the trial court‘s failure to indicate whether the dismissal was with prejudice, Hinkle failed to separately argue this assignment of error as required by
{¶ 11} Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that Hinkle‘s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Because the trial court did not err in granting Judge Mingo‘s motion to dismiss, we overrule Hinkle‘s four assignments of error.
IV. Disposition
{¶ 12} Based on the foregoing reasons, the trial court did not err in granting Judge Mingo‘s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Having overruled Hinkle‘s four assignments of error, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed.
LUPER SCHUSTER, BEATTY BLUNT, and LELAND, JJ., concur.