RANDALL J. NELSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ALAINNAH B. RODRIGUEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
CASE NO. 5-10-20
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HANCOCK COUNTY
March 7, 2011
2011-Ohio-996
Appeal from Hancock County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 2010-CV-378 Judgment Affirmed
Randall J. Nelson, Appellant
Alainnah B. Rodriguez, Appellee
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Randall J. Nelson (“Nelson“), pro-se, appeals the Hancock County Common Pleas’ judgment denying his motion to file his civil complaint against defendant-appellee, Alainnah B. Rodriguez (“Rodriguez“), in forma pauperis. We affirm.
{¶2} On May 21, 2010, Nelson filed a “Motion to file a civil complaint Informa Pauperis” against Rodriguez in the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas. (Doc. No. 6). Nelson attached to his motion an affidavit of indigency. (Id.). A copy of Nelson‘s complaint was included in the file but was neither file-stamped nor docketed by the clerk. Nelson‘s complaint essentially alleged that Rodriguez, his ex-girlfriend, defamed him by sending MySpace emails stating that he had infected her with HIV (AIDS).
{¶3} On June 4, 2010, the trial court overruled Nelson‘s motion to file his complaint in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 7). On June 28, 2010, Nelson filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 8). Nelson now appeals raising one assignment of error for our review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED PLAINTIFF‘S MOTION TO FILE COMPLAINT INFORMA [SIC] PAUPERIS.
{¶5} Ohio‘s Common Pleas Courts have inherent power to secure the orderly administration of justice and safeguard against conduct which would impair the free exercise of judicial functions. Eubank v. Doneghy (June 9, 1989), 6th Dist. No. L-88-193, at *1, citing Zangerle v. Common Pleas Court (1943), 141 Ohio St. 70, 46 N.E.2d 865. See, also, 19 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (2010), Costs in Civil Actions, Section 34. As an exercise of that inherent authority, it is within the court‘s discretion to determine whether indigency status is proper in a particular case for waiving the deposit for security of costs. Guisinger v. Spier, 166 Ohio App.3d 728, 2006-Ohio-1810, 853 N.E.2d 320, ¶6, citing Wilson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and Corr. (2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 239, 243, 741 N.E.2d 152. When making this determination, a trial court may consider: “whether the litigant has caused the court‘s limited resources to be expended needlessly in the past by filing numerous, repetitious, or frivolous complaints[;] whether the affidavit of indigency includes sufficient information concerning the litigant‘s financial condition[;] whether additional information is required[;] and whether the affidavit of indigency appears to be reasonable under conditions then existing.” Spier at ¶6, citing Wilson at 243. Nevertheless, “[t]he determination of indigence for purposes of whether a plaintiff should be required to pay filing fees and court costs ‘is
{¶6} “The standard of review in an appeal from a decision denying a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is an abuse of discretion.” Wilson, 138 Ohio App.3d at 243. An “abuse of discretion” has been defined as an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable act on the part of the trial court. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140.
{¶7} The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Nelson‘s motion to file his civil complaint in forma pauperis. Although the trial court concluded that Nelson‘s actual indigent status was “indisputable” and failed to find that Nelson had abused the judicial process, the trial court concluded that Nelson “ha[d] failed to establish any compelling public interest or individual necessity requiring that he be permitted to pursue his complaint without tendering the sufficient deposit in advance.” (June 4, 2010 JE, Doc. No. 7). The trial court‘s rational is not succinctly stated, but it appears to have determined that Nelson‘s indigency status for purposes of waiving the deposit for security of costs was not “reasonable under conditions then existing.” See Spier at ¶6, citing Wilson at 243. As such, we cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Nelson‘s motion to file his complaint in forma pauperis.
Judgment Affirmed
SHAW, J., concurs.
/jnc
WILLAMOWSKI, J., dissents.
{¶9} I disagree with the majority in that I would find the trial court‘s judgment to be an abuse of discretion.
The determination of indigence for purposes of whether a plaintiff should be required to pay filing fees and court costs “is typically granted liberally in order to preserve the due process rights of litigants and guarantee an access to judicial process and representation.” Evans v. Evans, Franklin App. Nos. 04AP-816 & 04AP-1208, 2005-Ohio-5090, 2005 WL 2364976, ¶23. “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 indigency status is proper in a particular case. The trial court may consider whether a litigant has caused the court‘s limited resources to be expended needlessly in the past by filing numerous, repetitious, or frivolous complaints, whether the affidavit of indigency includes sufficient information concerning the litigant‘s financial condition, whether additional information is required, and whether the affidavit of indigency appears to be reasonable under conditions then existing.” Wilson v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 239, 243, 741 N.E.2d 152.
Guisinger v. Spier, 166 Ohio App.3d 728, 2006-Ohio-1810, ¶6, 853 N.E.2d 320.