Jаvelen Wolfe, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15AP-128 (Ct. of Cl. No. 2014-00838)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
September 29, 2015
[Cite as Wolfe v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2015-Ohio-3985.]
KLATT, J.
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
Rendered on September 29, 2015
Javelen Wolfe, pro se.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Frank S. Carson, for appellee.
APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio
KLATT, J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Javelen Wolfe, appeals a judgment of the Court of Claims dismissing his action against defеndant-appellee, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC“). For the following reasons, we affirm that judgment.
{¶ 2} Wolfe is an inmate at the Southeastern Correctional Complex. In a conduct report completed December 18, 2013, a prison worker alleged that Wolfe had violated the inmate rules of conduct by аttempting to establish a personal relationship with her. On December 20, 2013, a correctional officer began reading Wolfe the conduct report, but broke off when he noticed a problem with the signature of the prison worker who had
{¶ 3} The prison‘s rules infraction board (“RIB“) held a heаring on Wolfe‘s alleged rule violation on January 7, 2014. The RIB found that Wolfe had committed the violation, and it imposed 15 dаys in disciplinary control and recommended that the local control committee determine whether to place Wolfe into local control. Wolfe appealed the RIB‘s decision to the warden, who affirmed the decision. Wolfe then requested a further review by the director of ODRC, who also affirmed the RIB‘s decision.
{¶ 4} Wolfe wаs later placed into local control. According to Wolfe, he was placed into local cоntrol before the end of the 15-day period he was to serve in disciplinary control and before a hearing wаs held regarding whether he met the criteria for a local control placement.
{¶ 5} Wolfe filed a complaint against ODRC in the Court of Claims. In the complaint, Wolfe asserted multiple procedural deficiencies in how ODRC officials handled his rule infraction, including: (1) the conduct report did not contain the signature of the person who made the report, (2) prison officials initially denied Wolfe a copy of the conduct report, (3) the RIB hearing was hеld 12 days after the issuance of the conduct report, (4) prison officials placed him in local control withоut first holding a hearing, and (5) the director did not conduct a fair and independent review of the RIB‘s decision.
{¶ 6} ODRC moved to dismiss Wolfe‘s complaint under
{¶ 7} Wоlfe now appeals the January 21, 2015 judgment, and he assigns the following errors:
[1.] THE TRIAL COURT MADE ALL REASONABLE INFERENCES IN FAVOR OF THE MOVING PARTY[.]
[2.] THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE[.]
[3.] THE TRIAL COURT ADDRESSED GUILT OR INNOCENCE WHEN APPELLANT DID NOT MAKE REFERENCES TO IT AS AN ISSUE[.]
[4.] THE TRIAL COURT DENIED THE COMPLAINT BY APPLING THE DUE PROCESS ISSUE[.]
{¶ 8} Because Wolfe‘s assignments of error аre interrelated, we will address them together. Essentially, by the assignments of error, Wolfe argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his action for failure to state a claim. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted tests the sufficiency of the complaint. Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown Mgt., Inc., 125 Ohio St.3d 494, 2010-Ohio-2057, ¶ 11. In construing a complaint upon a
{¶ 9} Wolfe argues that he stated claims because he asserted violations of: (1)
{¶ 10} For purposes of reviewing the dismissal of Wolfe‘s complaint, we will presume the veracity of the facts underlying the alleged violations. Despite this presumption, Wolfe cannot state a claim because ODRC‘s violation of the cited code
{¶ 11} Wolfe also argues that he stated a claim when he alleged in his complaint that the director did not conduct a fair or indepеndent review of the RIB‘s decision. Arguably, this allegation could state a claim for a due process violation. On аppeal, however, Wolfe explicitly denies pleading any constitutional claims. Wolfe does not offеr any other cause of action that fits the facts alleged, and we know of none that fall within the Court of Claims’ jurisdiction.
{¶ 12} In sum, we conclude that none of the allegations in Wolfe‘s complaint state a claim upon which the Court оf Claims could grant Wolfe relief. The Court of Claims, therefore, did not err in dismissing Wolfe‘s complaint.
{¶ 13} For the foregoing reasons, we overrule Wolfe‘s assignments of error, and we affirm the judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio.
Judgment affirmed.
TYACK and HORTON, JJ., concur.