Porter v. WardPorter v. Ward
{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Porter appeals the decision of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, which granted summary judgment against him in his pro se declaratory judgment action regarding attachments of his prisoner‘s account. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.
{¶2} Appellant, an inmate at the Mansfield Correctional Institution, ODRC, filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief on October 10, 2006 against the following individuals: Appellee Mary K. Ward, the Seneca County Clerk of Courts; Appellee John Symsick, the warden‘s сollection designee at the prison; and, Appellee Cris Nash, the prison‘s institutional cashier.
{¶3} The complaint alleged, inter alia, that Appellee Ward had violated appellant‘s due process rights by billing appellant‘s prison account for fees and costs associated with appellant‘s pending litigation in the Seneca County Court of Common Pleas. The complaint also alleged, inter alia, that Appellee Symsick‘s failure to enforce claimed statutory exemptions regarding the collections (including a separate case in the federal courts) deprived appellant of equal protection of the laws, and that Appellee Nash‘s limitation of appellant‘s access to funds violated his right to access to the court system.
{¶4} On February 20, 2007, Appellee Ward filed a motion for summary judgment. On March 22, 2007, Appellee Symsick and Appellee Nash filed a motion for summary judgment. Appellant filed responses to both.
{¶5} On April 5, 2007, the trial court issued a judgment entry granting summary judgment to in favor of Appellees Symsick and Nash, and denying appellant‘s motion for
{¶6} On May 4, 2007, appellant filed a notice of appeаl. He herein raises the following seventeen Assignments of Error:
{¶7} “I. PURSUANT TO
{¶8} “II. JUDGE HENSON FAILED TO RENDER AN ACTUAL DECISION BASED ON ANY OF THE MERITS OF THIS SUIT.
{¶9} “III. JUDGE HENSON ERRORED (SIC) IN FINDING THERE WAS NO REAL CONTROVERSY OR JUSTICABLE (SIC) ISSUE CONCERNING MONEY TAKEN FROM APPELLANT‘S ACCOUNT.
{¶10} “IV. JUDGE HENSON ERRORED (SIC) IN STATING THAT APPELLANT ‘DID NOT APPEAL THE TRIAL COURT‘S ORIGINAL JUDGMENT NOR DID HE SEEK TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION.’
{¶11} “V. JUDGE HENSON ERRORED (SIC) IN RULING THAT APPELLEE WARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NAMED AS A PARTY TO THIS SUIT.
{¶12} “VI. JUDGE HENSON ERRORED (SIC) IN HOLDING THAT APPELLEE WARD IS ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY.
{¶13} “VII. JUDGE HENSON ERRORED (SIC) IN GRANTING APPELLEES SYMSICK AND NASH‘S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
{¶14} “VIII. JUDGE HENSON ERRORED (SIC) IN UPHOLDING APPELLEES’ ARGUMENT THAT ‘PLAINTIFF WAS AFFORDED DUE PROCESS’ AS WELL-TAKEN.
{¶16} “X. JUDGE HENSON ERRORED (SIC) IN RULING THAT FUNDS APPELLANT RECEIVES FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES CANNOT BE DEFINED AS ‘MAINTENANCE.’
{¶17} “XI. JUDGE HENSON ERRORED (SIC) IN UPHOLDING APPELLEES’ ARGUMENT THAT ‘PLAINTIFF HAS (SIC) DEMONSTRATED HE WAS DENIED ACCESS TO COURTS.’
{¶18} “XII. JUDGE HENSON ERRORED (SIC) IN UPHOLDING THAT APPELLEE NASH DID NOT ERROR (SIC) BY ALLOWING APPELLANT ACCESS TO $3.00 PER MONTH.
{¶19} “XIII. JUDGE HENSON ERRORED (SIC) IN UPHOLDING THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF
{¶20} “XIV. JUDGE HENSON ERRORED (SIC) IN UPHOLDING APPELLEES’ ARGUMENT THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH
{¶21} “XV. JUDGE HENSON ERRORED (SIC) IN UPHOLDING APPELLEES’ ARGUMENT THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH
{¶22} “XVI. APPELLANT‘S ALLEGATION THAT DRC POLICY 24-CAS-07 FAILS TO COMPORT WITH CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES REMAINS TO BE LITIGATED AS A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT.
{¶23} “XVII. JUDGE HENSON FAILED TO SUBJECTIVELY REVIEW APPELLEE WARD‘S ATTEMPTED SETTLEMENT AS APPROPRIATE MATERIAL.”
{¶24} In his First Assignment of Error, appellant challenges the trial court‘s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee Ward, the Seneca County Clerk of Courts.
{¶25} In regard to this assigned error, we note that an appellant‘s brief is required to present “[a]n argument containing thе contentions of the appellant with respect to [the] assignment of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which appellant relies,” as per the requirements set forth in
{¶26} Appellant‘s First Assignment of Error is therefore overruled.
II., III., V., VI.
{¶27} In his Second, Third, Fifth and Sixth Assignmеnts of Error, appellant challenges on various grounds the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee Ward.
{¶28} The essential elements for declaratory relief are: (1) a real controversy exists between the parties; (2) the controversy is justiciable in character; and (3) speedy relief is necessary to preserve the rights of the parties. Aust v. Ohio State Dental Bd. (2000), 136 Ohio App.3d 677, 681. It is well-established under Ohio law that court clerks and other court employees have absolute immunity against suits arising out of
{¶29} It is undisputed that Appellee Ward is the duly elected Clerk of Courts for Seneca County. As part of her duties as clerk, Ward engaged in a legal collеction process pursuant to
{¶30} The remaining arguments as to Appellee Ward are therefore moot. Appellant‘s Second, Third, Fifth and Sixth Assignments of Error are overruled.
IV.
{¶31} Appellant‘s Fourth Assignment of Error challenges the trial court‘s finding that appellant did not appeal the original judgment or seek to vacate it. However, in order to secure reversal of a judgment, an appellant must not only show some error but must also show that that error was prejudicial to him. See Ames v. All American Truck & Trailer Service (Feb. 8, 1991), Lucas App. No. L-89-295, quoting Smith v. Flesher (1967), 12 Ohio St.2d 107, 110, 233 N.E.2d 137. Appellant‘s limited argument fails to articulate how the trial court‘s dicta impacted the final result of the present case.
{¶32} Appellant‘s Fоurth Assignment of Error is therefore overruled.
{¶33} In his Seventh and Eighth Assignments of Error, appellant contends the trial court erred in implicitly finding he had been afforded due process and in granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees Symsick and Nash. We disagree.
{¶34} As an appellate court reviewing summary judgment motions, we must stand in the shoes оf the trial court and conduct our review on the same standard and evidence as the trial court. Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc. (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 35, 506 N.E.2d 212.
{¶35} “Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. * * * A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that сonclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party‘s favor. * * * ”
{¶36} Appellant again raises the unsupported claim that the trial judge failed to examine the record. Appellant also challenges the lack of “specifics on record regarding the multiple issues * * *.” Appellant‘s Brief at 13. However, findings of fact and conclusions of law are not required in addressing summary judgment motions brought pursuant to
{¶38} We herein apply the aforesaid well-reasoned opinion of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals to the case sub judice. Appellant‘s Seventh and Eighth Assignments of Error are therefore overruled.
{¶39} In his Ninth Assignment of Error, appellant challenges summary judgment by arguing that his inmate state-pay should have qualified as exempt “personal earnings property.”
{¶40} Generally, for purposes of garnishment рroceedings after judgment, “personal earnings” is defined as “money, or any other consideration or thing of value, that is paid or due to a person in exchange for work, labor, or personal services provided by the person to an employer.”
{¶41} We find no merit in appellant‘s position, even assuming, arguendо, the applicability of
{¶42} In his Tenth Assignment of Error, appellant challenges summary judgment by arguing that funds an inmate receives from outside sources should be recognized as “maintenance.”
{¶43}
{¶44} We note the General Assembly uses the phrase “right to receive *** other maintenance,” suggesting something other than voluntary payments from friends and family received by an inmate. Indeed, although judicial interpretation of
{¶45} We find no reversible error regarding summary judgment in this regard as urged by appellant. Appellant‘s Tenth Assignment of Error is therefore overruled.
XI.
{¶46} In his Eleventh Assignment of Error, appellant argues the trial court erred in failing to find he was denied access to the courts. We disagree.
{¶48} In the сase sub judice, appellant claims he was left with insufficient funds after attachment with which to litigate a separate federal appeal. However, appellant herein fails to adequately detail how he was actually injured or prejudiced by appellees in a non-frivolous lawsuit attacking his sentence or challenging the conditions of his confinement. Moreover, appellant apparently concedes that he was able to accomplish the necessary mailing of the federal pleadings with the assistance of his father. See Appellant‘s Brief at 20.
{¶49} Appellant‘s Eleventh Assignmеnt of Error is therefore overruled.
XII.
{¶50} In his Twelfth Assignment of Error, appellant challenges summary judgment by arguing that Appellee Nash improperly garnished his prisoner account, leaving him with $3.00 instead of the $10.00 minimum balance set forth in
{¶51} The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, addressing analogous federal provisions, has held that even if the prisoner‘s account is under $10.00, prison officials still must direct payments to cover the initial filing fees to the federal district court in which the federal case is filed. See In re Prison Litigation Reform Act (U.S.C.A. 6, 1997), 105 F.3d 1131, 1133. We are thus unpersuaded that reasonable minds could find Appellee Nash violated appellant‘s rights in complying with the federal district court‘s demand for appellant‘s federal filing fee.
XIII.
{¶53} In his Thirteenth Assignment of Error, appellant contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment regarding his equal protection claims in regard to the attachment provisions under
{¶54} Appellant, in support of this assigned error, attempts to revive his arguments regarding “personal еarnings” and “maintenance,” which we have herein previously rejected. Accordingly, appellant‘s Thirteenth Assignment of Error is overruled.
XIV.
{¶55} In his Fourteenth Assignment of Error, appellant contends the trial court improperly found that he failed to comply with
{¶56}
{¶57} Our review of the record does not indicate that the trial court relied on this allegedly mistaken conclusion, as the court granted summаry judgment in this case rather than a procedural dismissal. A trial court judge is presumed to know the applicable law and apply it accordingly. Walczak v. Walczak, Stark App.No.2003CA00298, 2004-Ohio-3370, ¶ 22, quoting State v. Eley (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 174, 180-181, 672 N.E.2d 640.
XV.
{¶59} In his Fifteenth Assignment of Error, appellant contends the trial court improperly found that he failed to comply with
{¶60} The statute at issue reads as follows: “(A) If an inmate commences a civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee and if the inmate‘s claim in the civil action or the inmate‘s claim in the civil action that is being appealed is subject to the grievance system for the state correctional institution, jail, workhouse, or violation sanction center in which the inmate is confined, the inmate shall file both of the following with the court:
{¶61} “(1) An affidavit stating that the grievance was filed and the date on which the inmate received the decision regarding the grievance.
{¶62} “(2) A copy of any written decision regarding the grievance from the grievance system.”
{¶63} For reasons analogous to our redress of appellant‘s Fourteenth Assignment of Error, appellant‘s Fifteenth Assignment of Error is overruled.
XVI.
{¶64} In his Sixteenth Assignment of Error, appellant claims the certain DRC policies do not comport with relevant ORC and OAC provisiоns.
{¶65} We recognize Ohio case law addressing the availability of declaratory judgment actions as a potential remedy for inmates in Ohio prisons asserting constitutional claims. See, e.g., State ex rel. Yonkings v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 70, 630 N.E.2d 365. However, in light of appellant‘s several
{¶66} Appellant‘s Sixteenth Assignment of Error is overruled.
XVII.
{¶67} In his Seventeenth Assignment of Error, appellant claims the trial court failed to “subjectively review” documentation of Appellee Ward‘s alleged settlement proposal in case 06CV1207H. Appellant, as in his First Assignment of Error, again relies on an unsupported assertion regarding the trial judge‘s consideration of the materials in or related to the case. Appellant‘s Seventeenth Assignment of Error is overruled for want of compliance with
{¶68} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.
By: Wise, J.
Gwin, P. J., and
Farmer, J., concur.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
JUDGES
JWW/d 924
Costs to appellant.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
JUDGES