Sonya R. Jackson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 19AP-621 (Ct. of Cl. No. 2018-000742JD)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
April 16, 2020
2020-Ohio-1518
LUPER SCHUSTER, J.; SADLER, P.J., and DORRIAN, J., concur.
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
Rendered on April 16, 2020
On brief: Sonya R. Jackson, pro se.
On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Christopher P. Conomy, for appellee.
APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio
LUPER SCHUSTER, J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Sonya R. Jackson, pro se, appeals from an entry of the Court of Claims of Ohio granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings of defendant-appellee, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC“). For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} Jackson is an inmate in the custody and control of ODRC at the Ohio Reformatory for Women (“ORW“). On April 27, 2018, Jackson filed a complaint in the Court of Claims against ODRC seeking “compensatory damages for the loss of amenity in her prison living conditions, and of the limited liberty enjoyed by the prisoner, resulting from her transfer” from Northeast Reintegration Center (“NERC“). The institutional
{¶ 3} On July 10, 2018, ODRC filed a motion to dismiss Jackson‘s complaint pursuant to
{¶ 4} In an August 30, 2018 entry of partial dismissal, the Court of Claims granted in part and denied in part ODRC‘s motion to dismiss. Specifically, the Court of Claims dismissed Jackson‘s constitutional claims and claims for punitive damages, agreeing that the Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over constitutional claims. However, the Court of Claims found that by liberally construing Jackson‘s complaint, Jackson “could also be alleging that [ODRC] inappropriately transferred her from NERC to ORW.” (Entry of Partial Dismissal at 2.) The Court of Claims found that to the extent Jackson‘s complaint could be read as challenging an executive function of ODRC, it was not a constitutional challenge and therefore within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.
{¶ 5} Following the Court of Claims’ entry of partial dismissal, ODRC filed an answer to the complaint on September 27, 2018. Additionally, ODRC filed a motion for reconsideration seeking a complete dismissal based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court of Claims denied the motion for reconsideration.
{¶ 6} Subsequently, on July 8, 2019, ODRC filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
{¶ 7} In an August 19, 2019 entry, the Court of Claims granted ODRC‘s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Specifically, the Court of Claims found that Jackson failed to state a claim for relief based on her institutional placement or her security status. Additionally, the Court of Claims found that the decision to transfer Jackson to ORW involved a high degree of official discretion for which ODRC is entitled to discretionary immunity. Thus, having already dismissed the portion of Jackson‘s complaint it construed as alleging constitutional claims, the Court of Claims dismissed the rest of Jackson‘s complaint. Jackson timely appeals.
II. Assignments of Error
{¶ 8} Jackson assigns the following errors for our review:
- [1.] Court erred when plaintiff‘s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause was violated.
- [2.] Court erred to see the prison officials have discretion to transfer prisoners under policy and procedure.
- [3.] Court erred in dismissing complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted plaintiff had relief that could be granted.
III. Analysis
{¶ 9} In her three assignments of error, Jackson argues the Court of Claims erred in dismissing her claims by partially granting ODRC‘s July 10, 2018
{¶ 10}
{¶ 11} Pursuant to
{¶ 12} Jackson argues the Court of Claims erred in dismissing her complaint. As noted above, ODRC responds that dismissal was appropriate, but it asserts the Court of Claims should have dismissed the entirety of Jackson‘s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because her complaint asserts only constitutional claims. As a court of limited jurisdiction, the Court of Claims has no subject-matter jurisdiction over alleged violations of claims arising under
{¶ 13} In the first sentence of her complaint, Jackson states she “seeks compensatory damages for the loss of amenity in her prison living conditions, and of the limited liberty enjoyed by the prisoner, resulting from her transfer from [NERC] to [ORW].” She later describes ODRC‘s decision to transfer her as “punishment.” This court has previously held that “an inmate‘s claims regarding retaliatory conduct are properly classified as constitutional claims actionable under [
{¶ 14} In partially granting ODRC‘s
{¶ 15} Similarly, to the extent Jackson‘s complaint alleges her transfer, or ODRC‘s denial of her subsequent request to be transferred back to NERC, was a punishment, this court has previously held that “an inmate‘s claims regarding retaliatory conduct are properly classified as constitutional claims actionable under
{¶ 16} However, the Court of Claims declined to dismiss the entirety of Jackson‘s complaint under
{¶ 17} Though Jackson alleges in her complaint that ODRC violated its own policy when it transferred her to ORW, there is no cause of action for an allegation that ODRC violated its own internal rules or policies. Peters v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 14AP-1048, 2015-Ohio-2668, ¶ 10. Although a violation of an internal rule or policy of
{¶ 18} We are mindful that “[t]he mere fact that claims in a complaint are couched in certain legal terms is insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon a court.” Guillory at ¶ 11, citing State ex rel. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. v. Henson, 102 Ohio St.3d 349, 2004-Ohio-3208, ¶ 19. Instead, in determining whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a party‘s claims, the court must look to the body of the complaint and examine the underlying nature of the claims. Guillory at ¶ 11, citing Henson at ¶ 20.
{¶ 19} Having reviewed Jackson‘s complaint, we find she that while she points to ODRC‘s alleged violation of its own rule or policy, the only claims she states are constitutional ones. See Peters at ¶ 11 (noting “[n]o facts have been alleged in appellant‘s complaint that could support a claim based solely on the alleged violation of policy“). The mere fact that she references an alleged violation of ODRC‘s internal rules and policies does not convert her complaint into something other than one alleging constitutional claims. Jackson‘s complaint asserts claims that can be categorized as constitutional claims, retaliatory claims, or claims based upon unlawful conditions of confinement; the Court of Claims lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over all of these claims. Guillory at ¶ 12. Thus, we conclude the Court of Claims did not err in dismissing Jackson‘s complaint, albeit for different reasons than the Court of Claims.
{¶ 20} For these reasons, we overrule Jackson‘s three assignments of error.
IV. Disposition
{¶ 21} Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court of Claims did not err in dismissing Jackson‘s complaint, though we reach our decision for different reasons than the Court of Claims. Having overruled Jackson‘s three assignments of error, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio.
Judgment affirmed.
SADLER, P.J., and DORRIAN, J., concur.