2003 Ohio 5343 | Ohio Ct. App. | 2003
{¶ 2} Appellant was convicted in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas of one count of drug trafficking, two counts of drug possession, one count of felonious assault of a peace officer, and one count of tampering with evidence. The assigned judge sentenced appellant to maximum consecutive prison terms for all counts. Appellant's convictions were affirmed on appeal. State v. Walk (Dec. 29, 2000), Erie App. No. E-97-079. However, the appellate court reversed appellant's sentences, finding that the assigned judge failed to make the required findings to impose consecutive prison sentences. The court also held that the assigned judge failed to make the required findings to override the statutory presumption that appellant, who had not previously served a prison term, should serve no more than the minimum indicated prison term for each of the convictions. Therefore, the appellate court vacated appellant's sentences and ordered the assigned judge to modify the sentences for each count to concurrent minimum prison terms. Id.
{¶ 3} Almost a year later, appellant filed a complaint against the state of Ohio in the Ohio Court of Claims. Appellant averred that he was improperly incarcerated for 11 months due to the assigned judge's erroneous sentencing decision. Appellant sought monetary damages for that period of incarceration. Appellant later filed an amended complaint naming appellee as defendant. Appellant alleged that appellee appointed the assigned judge to hear his criminal case, and, therefore, appellee is liable, as an employer, for the assigned judge's sentencing error. After filing its answer to appellant's complaint, appellee moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C). The trial court granted appellee's motion, finding that, because the assigned judge was immune from civil liability, appellee could not be held vicariously liable for the assigned judge's error.
{¶ 4} Appellant appeals, assigning the following assignment of error:
THE COURT OF CLAIMS ERRED BY GRANTING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.
{¶ 5} In ruling on a Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings, "[t]he trial court may only consider the statements contained in the pleadings and may not consider any evidentiary materials." Moore v. Rickenbacker (May 3, 2001), Franklin App. No. 00AP-1259; State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious (1996),
{¶ 6} Appellant contends that appellee is liable because the judge assigned to handle appellant's criminal case imposed improper sentences. Under the theory of respondeat superior, an employer may be held liable for the negligent acts of its employee if those acts were taken in the employee's scope of employment. Campbell v. Colley (1996),
{¶ 7} For example, in Campbell, the plaintiff attempted to hold an ambulance company liable for the alleged negligence of its employee-dispatcher. However, the court noted that former R.C.
{¶ 8} In this case, appellant seeks to impose liability on appellee for the act of its employee, the assigned judge who erred in sentencing appellant. However, a judge is immune from civil liability for actions taken within the judge's official capacity, even if those actions were in error, in excess of authority or malicious. State ex rel. Fisher v. Burkhardt (1993),
{¶ 9} Pursuant to Section
{¶ 10} Even though appellant's sentence was later found to be improper, a judge does not forfeit immunity merely because his decision was in error or in excess of his jurisdiction. Reasoner, supra, at ¶ 17; Stump v. Sparkman (1978),
{¶ 11} Additionally, the assigned judge acted in his official judicial capacity in sentencing appellant. An act by a judge is judicial if it is a function normally performed by a judge and if the parties dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity. Burkhardt, supra; Forysth, supra. The inquiry focuses on the nature and function of the act, not on whether the act itself was proper. Mireles v. Waco (1991),
{¶ 12} Consequently, as the assigned judge acted within his jurisdiction and sentenced appellant in his judicial capacity, the assigned judge is immune from civil liability despite the fact that appellant's sentences were reversed on appeal. Because the assigned judge is immune from civil liability, vicarious liability may not be imposed on appellee through the doctrine of respondeat superior. Pressnell, supra; Pretty, supra; Campbell, supra.
{¶ 13} Because appellant could not prove any set of facts in support of his claim against appellee that would entitle him to relief, the trial court did not err in granting appellee's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
{¶ 14} Accordingly, appellant's assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the Ohio Court of Claims is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
BRYANT and SADLER, JJ., concur.
