Phelps v. Office of the Attorney Gen.Phelps v. Office of the Attorney Gen.
{¶ 2} On February 15, 2006, appellants, acting pro se, filed an amended complaint in the Court of Claims naming the State of Ohio/Office of the Attorney General, Seventh District Court of Appеals, Supreme Court of Ohio, and a number of individual elected officials and judges, including the Governor and the Chief Justicе of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Following that filing, the trial court, in a "pre-screening entry," dismissed all the defendants excеpt appellee (as representative of the State of Ohio entities) based upon R.C.
In the motion to dismiss, defendant argues that plaintiffs' complaint is "nearly indecipherаble." The court agrees. Indeed, upon review of plaintiffs' complaint and the documents attached therеto, the court is unable to discern a single cognizable claim for relief. The complaint also contains numеrous cryptic references to various attachments and exhibits that provide no guidance as to the clаim(s) plaintiffs attempt to assert.
{¶ 3} Appellants appeal assigning the following errors:
[1.] IS PHELPS COMPLAINT "INDECIPHERABLE"; CLAIMS ARE NOT INCOGNIZABLE AS TO WHAT RELIEF IS TO BE HAD, BUT ARE CLEAR AS TO ANYONE WITH A "REASONABLE MIND" ACCORDING TO SUBSTANTIVE LAWS AND OHIO JURISPRUDENCE OF THE STATE OF OHIO.
[2] COURT OF CLAIMS ERRORED AS TO THE DEFENSE ON IMMUNITY IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND AN ACTION [IS] A DENIAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS IS NOT TO BE DISMISSED AT THE PLEADING STAGE.
[3] COURT OF CLAIMS ERRORED [SIC] AS TO PHELPS CAUSE OF ACTION IN COMPLAINT.
[4] ERROR OF COURT OF CLAIMS INABILTY TO DECIPHER FROM THE COMPLAINT PHELPS STATUTORY RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS TO 3929.06 WHEN COURTS ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION.
[5] THE COURT OF CLAIMS ERRORED [SIC] AND IGNORED THE RULES OF COURT, O.R.C. AND OHIO JURISPRUDENCE AND SUBSTANTIVE CASELAW WRITTEN AS TO WORD IN PHELPS' COMPLAINT WHICH THE COURT STATED WAS INDECIPHERABLE.
[6] COURT OF CLAIMS FAILED TO DECIPHER THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO DID NOT COMPLY AS TO THEIR OWN RULINGS.
[7] COURT OF CLAIMS INABILITY TO DECIPHER FROM THE PHELPS COMPLAINT THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS ADMINISTRATOR [OF] THE DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL.
[8] AS THE COURT OF CLAIMS STATED THAT THEY COULD NOT DECIPHER FROM THE PHELPS COMPLAINT THAT THE PHELPS WERE DEPRIVED OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS THE COURTS NOT FOLLOWING THE LAWS AND THAT THE COURTS ARE TO PROTECT THOSE WHO COME BEFORE THEM THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS.
{¶ 4}
{¶ 5} Appellants' assignments of еrror are interrelated and, therefore, we will address them collectively. In essence, appellants contend that the trial court erred in finding their complaint "indecipherable" and that they have, in fact, stated causes of action for the denial of their civil rights, statutory rights, and constitutional rights. Therefore, we must determine on de novo review, whether appellants' amended complaint states a claim against appellee.
{¶ 6} Appellants' amended complaint consists of approximately 177 paragraphs covering over 80 pages. Attached to the amended complaint are a number of other lengthy documents, most of which are pleаdings from other legal actions. A large portion of the amended complaint consists of various statements of the law and citations to legal authorities. At the beginning of the amended complaint, appellants allege that they are asserting six claims:
[1.] ACTING IN BAD FAITH;
[2.] 1983, 1985, 1986 ACTION AS TO CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT LEGAL FRAUD, DENIAL OF FAIR TRIAL, CONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATION, 7 14 AMENDMENTS, DENIAL OF STATE STATUTES AND LAWS, ABUSE OF POWER WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD, MALICIOUS AND ABUSIVE DISREGARD AND INTENT TO CAUSE HARM ACTING WITHOUT JURISDICTION;
[3] NEGLIGENCE IN OFFICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES;
[4] ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND POWER, WITH GROSS NEGLIGENCE AS TO THE SUPREME COURT, SEVENTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, COLUMBIANA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, TREATING PHELPS WITH INDIFFERENT TREATMENT AND ACTING WITHOUT JURISDICTION;
[5.] CIVIL R.I.CO.
[6] BREACH OF IMPLIED/ORAL CONTRACT.
{¶ 7} Despite the length of appellants' amended complaint, their identification of a number of legal claims, and their detailed recitation of several different legal proceedings, thе factual basis for appellants' purported claims against appellee is largely indecipherаble. Although it is apparent that appellants are unhappy with the legal ruling in various legal proceedings in whiсh they were parties, we are unable to discern the factual basis for the claims they purport to assert hеre.
{¶ 8} We recognize that appellants are acting pro se. Nevertheless, a pro sе litigant "`is held to the same rules, procedures and standards as those litigants represented by counsel and must accept the results of her own mistakes and errors.'" Dailey v. R J CommercialContracting, Franklin App. No. 01AP-1464,
{¶ 9} Moreover, to the extent that appellants attempt to assert claims against various states courts, appellants' allegations clearly challenge judicial acts conducted in the context of legal proceedings. Ohio judges have absolute immunity for actions taken within their official discretiоn. Elliott v. Ohio Dept. of Ins. (1993),
{¶ 10} For the foregoing reasons, we overrule appellants' eight assignments of error, and we affirm the judgment of the Court of Claims.
Judgment affirmed.
FRENCH and McGRATH, JJ., concur.