RYAN SALIM v. RONALD SMITH, et al.
C.A. No. 15CA010790
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO
May 2, 2016
[Cite as Salim v. Smith, 2016-Ohio-2764.]
MOORE, Judge.
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 15CV185826
MOORE, Judge.
{¶1} Plaintiff, Ryan Salim, appeals from the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
I.
{¶2} On March 4, 2015, Mr. Salim, an inmate at the Grafton Correctional Institution (“Grafton“), filed a complaint for “declaratory judgment” against the chaplain, warden, and deputy warden of special services employed by Grafton, as well as the Director, the previous religious services administrator, and the successor religious services administrator of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (“ODRC“). In his complaint, Mr. Salim alleged that in 2013, upon his transfer to Grafton, he began frequenting the Grafton Chapel for religious services. In April of 2013, Mr. Salim was moved to the “A-2 Faith-Based Housing Unit” (“A2 Unit“). Toward the end of December of 2013, the chaplain at Grafton, Ronald Smith, required
In his complaint, Mr. Salim set forth twelve counts. Each count commenced with an introduction as reproduced below.
Count One: Breach of Contract: A declaratory judgment issue regarding defendants[‘] * * * contractual duties towards [Mr. Salim] was breached; and if so, whether such contract should be declared defunct.
Count Two: Impossible Contract: A declaratory judgment issue regarding all the defendants deciding whether the A2 Contract is an impossible contract because there is no feasible way for either party to perform all of their duties under the contract.
Count Three: Residential Duress: A declaratory judgment issue regarding all the defendants deciding whether the A2 Contract is void because it was signed under duress.
Count Four: Breach of Official Duty: A declaratory judgment issue regarding all of the defendants deciding whether the negligence of the defendants was a breach of duty in their official capacities which caused damage to [Mr. Salim].
Count Five: Fraud: A declaratory judg[m]ent issue regarding all the defendants deciding whether fraud was committed.
Count Six: Civil Conspiracy: A declaratory judgment issue regarding all the defendants deciding whether they have committed a civil conspiracy against plaintiff.
Count Seven: Misappropriation of Funds: A declaratory judgment issue regarding all the defendants deciding whether they knowingly and willfully misused public funds or were complicit in the act of such.
Count Eight: Unjust Enrichment: A declaratory judgment issue regarding all the defendants deciding whether they were unjustly enriched at the expense of [Mr. Salim]. Count Nine: Good Faith and Fair Dealing: A declaratory judgment issue regarding all the defendants deciding whether they breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing with [Mr. Salim].
Count Ten: Tortious Interference with a Contractu[al] Relationship: A declaratory judgment issue regarding [Chaplain] Smith deciding whether he intentionally interfered with the contractual relationship between [Mr. Salim] and Grafton * * *.
Count Eleven: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: A declaratory judgment issue regarding all the defendants deciding whether plaintiff suffered emotional distress as a result of their actions.
Count Twelve: Retaliation: A declaratory judgment issue regarding whether [Chaplain] Smith engaged in retaliatory behavior through third party individuals.
{¶3} In his prayer for judgment, Mr. Salim requested the relief as sought under each count, reasonable attorney fees and expenses and costs of the action, compensatory and punitive damages, and any other relief as deemed appropriate by the court. Thereafter, Mr. Salim filed an amendment to his complaint, in which he removed all requests for compensatory and punitive damages.
{¶4} The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The defendants divided Mr. Salim‘s claims into three categories: the contract claims (claims one through four, nine, and ten), the state-law tort claims (claims five through eight, and eleven), and the First Amendment retaliation claim (claim twelve). The defendants maintained, in part, that the contract claims failed because the purported contract does not obligate the defendants to perform any particular services. The defendants further maintained that the First Amendment retaliation claim failed because isolated threats do not constitute adverse actions as a matter of law. Defendants
{¶5} Mr. Salim opposed the motion. Mr. Salim categorized his claims as a “declaratory action” which sought a declaration whether the contract he entered into with Grafton was a “valid and binding contract pursuant to [R].C. Chapter 2721, and [Civ.R.] 57.” He maintained that his complaint also sought a “declaration regarding his rights to be free of retaliation, and a declaration whether the official misconduct of the defendants was in fact criminal.”
{¶6} In a journal entry dated May 21, 2015, the trial court granted the defendant‘s motion to dismiss. Mr. Salim timely appealed, and he now presents four assignments of error for our review. We have reordered and consolidated the assignments of error to facilitate our discussion.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED FINDING THAT IT LACKED JURISDICTION OVER COUNTS FIVE THROUGH EIGHT UNDER [
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING THAT THE A2 CONTRACT DOES NOT IMPOSE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS UPON THE DEFENDANTS AND THEN IMPROPERLY FOUND THAT THERE IS NO JUSTICIABLE ISSUE.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING THAT THE COMPLAINT FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM ON COUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR, NINE, AND TEN UNDER [
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING THAT THE COMPLAINT FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM ON COUNT TWELVE UNDER [
{¶7} In his assignments of error, Mr. Salim maintains that the trial court erred in dismissing his claims.
{¶8} The trial court dismissed Mr. Salim‘s complaint on the defendants’ motion filed pursuant to
{¶9} We will address the propriety of dismissal of Mr. Salim‘s claims below insofar as these claims can be read as asserting tort claims, declaratory judgment claims, a purported claim for a declaration of criminal conduct, and a First Amendment retaliation claim.
“Tort” Claims
{¶10} First, with respect to the “tort” claims, the trial court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear these claims because they fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.
{¶12} Here, the trial court concluded that, to the extent that Mr. Salim was alleging tort claims, exclusive jurisdiction for these claims fell within the Court of Claims. We agree with the trial court, to the extent that Mr. Salim‘s complaint could be read as asserting claims for monetary damages.
{¶13} However, Mr. Salim maintains that because he removed his specific requests for monetary relief from his prayer for judgment through his amendment, the trial court had jurisdiction to enter a “declaratory judgment” as to these claims under
R.C. Chapter 2721
{¶14} Along with seeking declarations that the defendants engaged in tortious behavior, in six counts of his complaint which the parties referred to as the “[c]ontract” claims, Mr. Salim sought “declaratory judgment” pertaining to the A2 contract.
{¶15}
{¶16} Declaratory judgment may not be available “unless the trial court, within its discretion, finds that the action is consistent with the purposes of
{¶17}
Subject to division (B) of section 2721.02 of the Revised Code, any person interested under a deed, will, written contract, or other writing constituting a contract or any person whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a constitutional provision, statute, rule as defined in section 119.01 of the Revised Code, municipal ordinance, township resolution, contract, or franchise may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, constitutional provision, statute, rule, ordinance, resolution, contract, or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations under it.
{¶18} Here, with respect to Mr. Salim‘s “tort” claims contained in counts five through eight, and eleven, we cannot discern how these claims seek to “have determined any question of
{¶19} However, even could we read any of these counts as seeking a declaration as to the construction and rights under the A2 contract, the trial court concluded that the “contract” claims were not justiciable because the A2 contract did not impose legal obligations on the defendants. Mr. Salim challenges this determination as well.
{¶20} A complaint for declaratory judgment may be “dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted only if (1) no real controversy or justiciable issue exists between the parties, or (2) the declaratory judgment will not terminate the uncertainty or controversy.” Weyandt v. Davis, 112 Ohio App.3d 717, 721 (9th Dist.1996), citing Miller v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Edn., 9th Dist. Summit No. 15847, 1993 WL 99998, *1 (Apr. 7, 1993), citing Fioresi v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 26 Ohio App.3d 203, 203-204 (1st Dist.1985). As the Ohio Supreme Court has explained:
Although broad in scope, the declaratory judgment statutes are not without limitation. Most significantly, in keeping with the long-standing tradition that a court does not render advisory opinions, they allow the filing of a declaratory judgment only to decide “an actual controversy, the resolution of which will confer certain rights or status upon the litigants.” Not every conceivable controversy is an actual one. As the First District aptly noted, in order for a justiciable question to exist, the danger or dilemma of the plaintiff must be present, not contingent on the happening of hypothetical future events and the threat to his position must be actual and genuine and not merely possible or remote.
{¶21} “[A]n appellate court reviewing a declaratory-judgment matter should apply an abuse-of-discretion standard in regard to the trial court‘s holding concerning the appropriateness of the case for declaratory judgment, i.e., the matter‘s justiciability, and should apply a de novo standard of review in regard to the trial court‘s determination of legal issues in the case.” Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401, 2012-Ohio-3208, ¶ 1. Here, the trial court based its justiciability determination on its determination that that the A-2 contract did not impose legal obligations on the defendants. We review questions regarding contract interpretation de novo. Stantec Consulting Servs. v. Velotta Co., 9th Dist. Medina Nos. 14CA0028-M, 14CA0034-M, 2015-Ohio-2310, ¶ 8. “A contract is generally defined as a promise, or a set of promises, actionable upon breach. Essential elements of a contract include an offer, acceptance, contractual capacity, consideration (the bargained for legal benefit and/or detriment), a manifestation of mutual assent and legality of object and of consideration.” (Quotations omitted.) Price v. KNL Custom Homes, Inc., 9th Dist. Summit No. 26968, 2015-Ohio-436, ¶ 30.
{¶22} Here, the purported contract is entitled “A2 Faith-Based Housing Unit Contract[.]” It commences by providing a line for the inmate‘s name and “number[,]” and then provides that the inmate does “volunteer to participate in the A2 Faith-Based Housing Unit. The program rules and expectations have been explained to me and I understand the following[.]” Thereafter the A2 contract lists fifteen “[d]orm [r]ules” and twelve “[p]rogram [e]xpectations[.]” It then provides a line for a printed name and number, followed by a signature line, presumably for the inmate, as Mr. Salim alleged that he was forced to sign the contract. It then provides a line for a “Faith-Based Unit Team Member” as a witness.
{¶24} Accordingly, the trial court did not error in concluding that the A2 contract imposed no obligations on the defendants. Based upon this, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that there existed no justiciable issue to be decided through a declaratory judgment action. See Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401, 2012-Ohio-3208, at ¶ 1; see also Perry, 183 Ohio App.3d 281, 2009-Ohio-3497, at ¶ 23 (construing a “letter” is not appropriate subject for declaratory judgment). Mr. Salim maintains that the trial court was further required to address whether a real controversy existed between the parties, and whether there was a situation in which speedy relief is necessary to preserve the parties’ rights. However, having determined that there was no justiciable issue, Mr. Salim‘s claims for declaratory judgment were properly dismissed on that basis alone, and it was unnecessary for the trial court to address anything further pertaining to these claims. See ProgressOhio.org, Inc v. JobsOhio, 139 Ohio St.3d 520, 2014-Ohio-2382, ¶ 19 (“[T]he three prerequisites to declaratory relief are (1) a real
{¶25} Accordingly, Mr. Salim‘s first and third assignments of error, together with that portion of his second assignment of error challenging the trial court‘s dismissal of his “tort” and “[c]ontract” claims, are overruled.
Declaration of Criminal Conduct
{¶26} As part of his second assignment of error, Mr. Salim maintains that the trial court erred in dismissing his claim for a declaration that the defendants engaged in criminal conduct. In his introductory paragraph in his complaint, Mr. Salim sought a declaration as to whether the defendants engaged in criminal behavior. More specifically, in the seventh count of his complaint, Mr. Salim sought a “declaration” that the defendants had engaged in criminal conduct by “knowingly and willfully misus[ing] public funds or [being] complicit in the act of such.”
{¶27} The trial court dismissed this portion of the claim by indicating that he had no jurisdiction to declare this behavior criminal, citing In re Appointment of Special Prosecutor, (“Special Prosecutor“), 6th Dist. Ottawa No. OT-01-030, 2002-Ohio-1874. Mr. Salim argues that Special Prosecutor does not apply because he “was not trying to secure an indictment, only a declaration of facts to determine if there were grounds for a criminal investigation to be initiated.”
{¶28} Mr. Salim maintains that, because he is a pro se litigant, his complaint should have been liberally construed and the trial court should have performed its duty as a “reviewing official” pursuant to
“Retaliation” Claim
{¶29} Mr. Salim argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the twelfth count of his complaint because he properly pleaded a First Amendment retaliation claim.
{¶30} “A prisoner‘s claim that prison officials retaliated against him for engaging in protected conduct is grounded in the First Amendment.” King v. Zamiara, 150 Fed.Appx. 485, 491 (6th Cir.2005). Such a claim requires the plaintiff to establish that “(1) he engaged in protected conduct; (2) an adverse action was taken against him that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that conduct; and (3) the adverse action was motivated, at least in part, by his protected conduct.” Id.
{¶31} The trial court dismissed this claim under
{¶32} However, this Court has held that, with respect to
{¶33} Taking as true Mr. Salim‘s allegations in his complaint, and resolving all inferences in his favor, we cannot say there exists no set of facts under which he could prove his retaliation claim. See LaSalle Bank, N.A. at ¶ 19. Accordingly, Mr. Salim‘s fourth assignment of error is sustained.
III.
{¶34} Mr. Salim‘s first, second, and third assignments of error are overruled. Mr. Salim‘s fourth assignment of error is sustained. The judgment of trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and cause remanded.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Costs taxed equally to both parties.
CARLA MOORE
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, P. J.
SCHAFER, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
RYAN SALIM, pro se, Appellant.
MICHAEL DEWINE, Attorney General, and JUDITH B. GOLDSTEIN, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee.