Keevon Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. [Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction], Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22AP-61
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
June 23, 2022
2022-Ohio-2155
DORRIAN, J.
(Ct. of Cl. No. 2021-00413JD) (ACCELERATED CALENDAR)
Rendered on June 23, 2022
On brief: Keevon Johnson, pro se.
On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Amy S. Brown, for appellee.
APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio
DORRIAN, J.
{1} Plaintiff-appellant, Keevon Johnson, appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio granting the
I. Facts and Procedural History
{2} On July 23, 2021, appellant filed a complaint against ODRC alleging negligence. Appellant alleged that on January 10, 2019, while he was an inmate at a correctional facility, ODRC required the inmates in appellant‘s housing unit to submit to urine analysis testing. Appellant alleged his urine sample was negative for drugs, but that
{3} On September 21, 2021, ODRC filed a
{4} On December 27, 2021, the Court of Claims rejected appellant‘s arguments and granted ODRC‘s motion to dismiss. The court held that, even accepting appellant‘s contention his claim accrued in March 2019, the complaint was still “filed outside the two-year limitation on actions in
II. Assignment of Error
{5} Appellant appeals and assigns the following sole assignment of error for our review:
THE LOWER COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN DISMISSING APPELLANT‘S CLAIM WHEN APPELLANT GAVE GOOD CAUSE IN SHOWING EXCUSABLE NEGLECT IN NOT MEETING THE TWO-YEAR TIME LIMITATIONS FOR FILING SUIT, WHEREBY VIOLATING APPELLANT‘S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AS WELL AS ARTICLE I SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
III. Analysis
{6} Appellant‘s sole assignment of error asserts the Court of Claims erred by dismissing the case, as appellant established excusable neglect for his untimely complaint.
{7} Appellate review of a judgment rendered on a
{8}
{9} Appellant contends the Supreme Court‘s order tolling time during the COVID-19 pandemic rendered his complaint timely. On March 27, 2020, the Supreme Court issued an administrative action acknowledging that on March 27, 2020, the Governor of Ohio signed Am.Sub.H.B. No. 197 into law which tolled, retroactive to March 9, 2020, “all statutes of limitation, time limitations, and deadlines in the Ohio Revised Code” until the “expiration of Executive Order 2020-01D or July 30, 2020, whichever is sooner.” In re Tolling of Time Requirements Imposed by Rules Promulgated by Supreme Court & Use of Technology, 158 Ohio St.3d 1447, 2020-Ohio-1166. See Kemba Fin. Credit Union v. Covington, 10th Dist. No. 20AP-487, 2021-Ohio-2120, ¶ 4, fn. 1. On April 2, 2020, the Supreme Court issued guidance with respect to the tolling legislation and order, explaining that the “legislation and Supreme Court order toll only time requirements set to expire during the emergency period. Time requirements that are set to expire after the emergency period are not tolled.” (Emphasis sic.) The Supreme Court, Assessing Impact of Tolling Legislation and Supreme Court Order upon Specific Time Requirements, accessible at https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/coronavirus/resources/tollingAnalysis040220.pdf (accessed June 23, 2022) (stating, as an example, that “if a time requirement expire[d]” after the emergency period ended “on August 1, [2020,] it still expire[d] on August 1[, 2020]“). See also Chapman Ents., Inc. v. McClain, 165 Ohio St.3d 428, 2021-Ohio-2386, ¶ 11, fn. 3 (explaining that under H.B. No. 197, the tolling period began March 9, 2020 and ended July 30, 2020).
{10} Thus, the tolling legislation tolled deadlines between March 9 and July 30, 2020, but had no effect on time requirements which expired after July 30, 2020. As the statute of limitations in the present case expired well after July 30, 2020, the tolling legislation did not affect the time within which appellant had to file his complaint. See State v. Bender, 3d Dist. No. 14-21-01, 2021-Ohio-1931, ¶ 10 (observing that, as the “deadline for timely filing a petition for post-conviction relief was September 9, 2020, which did not fall in between March 9, 2020 and July 30, 2020 * * *, the law tolling statutory time requirements [did] not apply in this situation“).
{11} Appellant further asserts that
{12}
{13} Appellant further asserts that ODRC failed to “follow any policy or procedure in the handling” of this case, as “[n]o drugs were ever found.” (Appellant‘s Brief at 4-5.) However, the issues regarding whether appellant contributed to the presence of drugs in the prison and/or ODRC‘s handling of appellant‘s property are irrelevant to whether
IV. Conclusion
{14} Upon review, we find the complaint conclusively demonstrates the action was barred by
{15} Having overruled appellant‘s sole assignment of error, the judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio is affirmed.
Motion for leave to supplement granted; judgment affirmed.
KLATT and MENTEL, JJ., concur.