From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr.

COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY
Nov 9, 2020
2020 Ohio 5234 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)

Opinion

CASE NO. CA2020-03-023

11-09-2020

BENJAMEN HILL, Appellant, v. OHIO DEPT. OF REHABILITATION & CORRECTIONS, et al., Appellees.

Benjamen Hill, Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio, 3151 County Road 2425, Stryker, Ohio 45036, pro se David A. Yost, Ohio Attorney General, Byron D. Turner, Criminal Justice Section, Corrections Unit, 150 East Gay Street, 16th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215, for appellees


OPINION

APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. 19CV092693 Benjamen Hill, Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio, 3151 County Road 2425, Stryker, Ohio 45036, pro se David A. Yost, Ohio Attorney General, Byron D. Turner, Criminal Justice Section, Corrections Unit, 150 East Gay Street, 16th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215, for appellees S. POWELL, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Benjamen Hill, appeals the decision of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by appellees, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections and several Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections employees (collectively, "ODRC"). For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the trial court's decision.

{¶ 2} On October 7, 2019, Hill, then an inmate at the Warren Correctional Institution, filed a complaint against ODRC seeking both compensatory and punitive damages for its alleged "conveyance, harassment, falsification, and denial of due process." Hill also alleged that ODRC had engaged in efforts to conspire, hinder, and impede his access to the Warren Correctional Institution's law library. This, according to Hill, resulted in a loss of wages, liberty, and his ability to effectively advocate in favor of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus then pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Hill also sought a temporary injunction against ODRC for "acts concerted by [ODRC] corrections officers." Hill alleged these acts violated his rights under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Hill was at that time incarcerated at the Warren Correctional Institution serving an aggregate 36-month prison sentence imposed by the Henry County Court of Common Pleas. The 36-month prison sentence was imposed after the Henry County Court of Common Pleas revoked Hill's three-year community control term stemming from his earlier conviction for assault and attempted robbery. The Henry County Court of Common Pleas' decision to revoke Hill's community control and sentence him to serve 36 months in prison was subsequently affirmed on appeal by the Third District Court of Appeals in State v. Hill, 3d Dist. Henry No. 7-18-24, 2018-Ohio-4647. --------

{¶ 3} Hill submitted an affidavit of prior civil litigation with his complaint. Pursuant to R.C. 2969.25(A), when an inmate commences a civil action against a government entity or employee, like Hill here, the inmate must file "an affidavit that contains a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action that the inmate has filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court." The affidavit must include: (1) a brief description of the nature of the civil action or appeal; (2) the case name, case number, and court in which the action or appeal was brought; (3) the name of each party to each action or appeal; and (4) the outcome of each action or appeal. Id. "Compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is mandatory, and the failure to comply warrants dismissal of the action." State ex rel. Ware v. Pureval, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4024, ¶ 5, citing State v. Henton, 146 Ohio St.3d 9, 2016-Ohio- 1518, ¶ 3; State ex rel. Neguse v. McIntosh, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3533, ¶ 12 (appellant's "failure to file an affidavit that strictly complies with R.C. 2969.25[A] is sufficient ground for dismissal").

{¶ 4} Hill's affidavit of prior civil litigation states, in pertinent part, the following:

Now comes Benjamen Hill plaintiff pro se in this action under penalty of perjury [d]oes hereby declare that the following is true and correct to wit:

1. I am the plaintiff in this action.

2. I am currently incarcerated at Warren Correctional Institution 5787 Ohio 63 Lebanon, Ohio 45036.

3. I have not been the part of any civil actions in the last five years.

4. This action has been filed in good faith regarding issues that are valid [i]nvolving the parties named herein.

5. I have the following civil actions pending, USDC N.D., OHIO WESTERN DIVISION 3:19 CV 01196 under 28 U.S.C. 2254, 3:19 CV01015 under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

{¶ 5} Hill also submitted an affidavit of indigence with his complaint. Pursuant to R.C. 2969.25(C), if an inmate who files a civil action against a government entity or employee seeks a waiver of the prepayment of the full filing fees by the trial court in which the action was filed, like Hill did here, the inmate must submit an affidavit of indigency that includes: (1) a statement certified by the institutional cashier setting forth the balance in the inmate's account for each of the preceding six months; and (2) a statement that sets forth all other cash and things of value owned by the inmate at the time of filing. Id. "R.C. 2969.25(C) does not permit substantial compliance." State ex rel. v. Neil v. French, 153 Ohio St.3d 271, 2018-Ohio-2692, ¶ 7, citing State ex rel. Manns v. Henson, 119 Ohio St.3d 348, 2008-Ohio-4478, ¶ 4. Just like with the requirements set forth in R.C. 2969.25(A), "[t]he requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C) are mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects the complaint to dismissal." State ex rel. Arroyo v. Sloan, 142 Ohio St.3d 541, 2015-Ohio-2081, ¶ 4, citing Hazel v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 22, 2011-Ohio-4608, ¶ 1.

{¶ 6} Hill's affidavit of indigence states, in pertinent part, the following:

I, Benjamen Hill, plaintiff pro se hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the following [i]s true and correct to wit:

1. P[l]aintiff having reviewed the record is indigent, without means to pay the cost of this action.

2. Plaintiff at all times mentioned is a state prisoner incarcerated at Warren Correctional Institution 5787 Ohio 63 Lebanon Ohio 45036 has suffered loss of wages loss of liberty and denied due process as a result of acts committed by defendant corrections officers named herein.

3. Plaintiff receives only $12.00 a month from the state and has no cash, bank accounts.

4. Plaintiff has no cash, bank accounts, real estate or surety to pay the cost of this action.

{¶ 7} Hill included an uncertified two-page document setting forth his account balance for August 25, 2019 thru September 28, 2019 with his affidavit of indigence.

{¶ 8} On December 11, 2019, ODRC moved the trial court for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C). In support of its motion, ODRC initially argued that Hill's complaint should be dismissed due to Hill's failure to comply with the requirements set forth in R.C. 2969.25(A). Specifically, as ODRC stated in its supporting memorandum:

Plaintiff's Affidavit of Prior Civil Litigation includes two case numbers and the venue in which they are being litigated. This is insufficient to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) because the statute additionally requires a plaintiff to include a brief description of his civil actions, a case name, and the name of each party to the civil action or appeal. * * * Consequently, the insufficient Affidavit of Prior Civil Litigation requires that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed because a complaint filing must be filed contemporaneous with the Complaint.

{¶ 9} ODRC also argued that Hill's complaint should be dismissed due to Hill's failure to comply with the requirements set forth in R.C. 2969.25(C). Specifically, as ODRC stated in its supporting memorandum:

Likewise, Plaintiff's Affidavit of Indigence is insufficient. * * * Plaintiff attached his inmate statement to his Affidavit of Indigence; however, the inmate statement date range is only August 25, 2019 through September 28, 2019. * * * This two-page inmate statement only includes one (1) preceding month rather than the six (6) preceding months required by the statute. Consequently, Plaintiff's Affidavit of Indigence and corresponding inmate statement are insufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C).

{¶ 10} The record indicates that Hill did not submit any memorandum in opposition to ODRC's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

{¶ 11} On January 13, 2020, a trial court magistrate issued a decision granting ODRC's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The magistrate reached this decision upon finding Hill's affidavit of prior civil litigation failed to meet the requirements set forth in R.C. 2969.25(A). As the magistrate stated:

Plaintiff's "affidavit of prior civil litigation," filed contemporaneously with his complaint, includes two case numbers and the venue in which they are being litigated, but fails to set forth a brief description of the nature of the civil actions, provide a case number of the civil actions, and name each person or entity that is a party to the civil action. R.C. 2969.25(A).

{¶ 12} The magistrate also found Hill's affidavit of indigence failed to meet the requirements set forth in R.C. 2969.25(C). As the magistrate stated:

Plaintiff's "affidavit of indigence," filed contemporaneously with his complaint, lists only one month of account statements from the institutional cashier rather than the six months required by R.C. 2969.25(C).

{¶ 13} On January 24, 2020, Hill filed an objection to the magistrate's decision. In support of his objection, Hill argued the trial court should deny ODRC's motion for judgment on the pleadings because he "made every attempt to comply with the mandatory rules of law" set forth in R.C. 2969.25(C). However, despite his best efforts, Hill argued that he was unable to obtain such a statement due to the "intentional negligence and dereliction of duty" by the cashiers and mailroom employees working at the Warren Correctional Institution. Therefore, because he had no "physical control" over the individuals employed at the Warren Correctional Institution's cashiers' office or mailroom, Hill argued that he should not be held responsible for providing the trial court with "improper forms" that did not comply with the requirements set forth in R.C. 2969.25(C).

{¶ 14} Hill also argued that the trial court should deny ODRC's motion for judgment on the pleadings because his affidavit of prior civil litigation was "adequate" to satisfy the requirements set forth in R.C. 2969.25(A). This is because, according to Hill, he had "never been the part of any civil action or complaint." Hill, however, then went on to discuss a previously unnamed and undisclosed "pending" civil action involving himself and two officers with the Henry Country Sheriff's Office. Hill also discussed the two "pending" civil actions that he had listed in his affidavit of prior civil litigation. As part of this discussion, Hill claimed that neither of those two cases "apply as a relevant issue as grounds for dismissal" since they involve matters relating to his prior disorderly conduct conviction. Therefore, because those three pending civil actions did not "remove any existence" of the underlying factual issues Hill alleged in his complaint, Hill argued that he should also be excused from adhering to the requirements set forth in R.C. 2969.25(A).

{¶ 15} On February 28, 2020, the trial court issued a decision and entry overruling Hill's objection to the magistrate's decision. In so holding, the trial court stated the following in regard to Hill's arguments challenging the requirements set forth in R.C. 2969.25(C):

Upon review, the Court finds Hill's objections not well taken. While Hill claims he made every attempt to obtain a six-month statement of his institutional account and should not be held accountable for the institution's misconduct, he ignores the provision of R.C. 2969.25(C) which requires he set forth "all other cash and things of value owned by the inmate." Hill averred that he receives $12 per month, but owned no cash or
bank accounts. He failed, however, to provide a list of "things of value" that the owns. Thus, even if this Court were to presume the institution was at fault for not providing a six-month account statement, Hill still failed to provide a statement of all items of value he owned at the time he filed suit.

{¶ 16} Continuing, the trial court stated in regard to Hill's arguments challenging the requirements set forth in R.C. 2969.25(A):

Furthermore, as to R.C. 2969.25(A), Hill provided an affidavit that states he had "not been part of any civil action in the last five years" while simultaneously listing two civil actions that he currently had pending in federal court. Hill was required to provide further details of these federal cases to this Court in filing his complaint, but failed to do so.

{¶ 17} Hill now appeals the trial court's decision overruling his objection to the magistrate's decision granting ODRC's motion for judgment on the pleadings, raising four assignments of error for review. For ease of discussion, we will address Hill's four assignments of error together.

{¶ 18} Assignment of Error No. 1:

{¶ 19} THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES DECISION WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND CONTRARY TO LAW WHEN IT FAILED TO SET FORTH ANY SPECIFIC ALLEGATION OF NON COMPLIANCE (sic) WITH RC 2969.25.

{¶ 20} Assignment of Error No. 2:

{¶ 21} THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES DECISION IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FAILED TO SET FOR ANY SPECIFIC ALLEGATION OF NON COMPLIANCE (sic) WITH RC 2969.25.

{¶ 22} Assignment of Error No. 3:

{¶ 23} THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO TAKE NOTICE OF THE PLAINTIFF(S) OBJECTION PURSUANT TO CIV R 53(D)3(B).

{¶ 24} Assignment of Error No. 4:

{¶ 25} DEFENSE COUNSEL/APPELLEES FAILED TO SET FORTH ANY GENUINE ISSUE OR SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT WOULD ALLOW THE COURT GROUNDS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.

{¶ 26} In his four assignments of error, Hill argues the trial court erred by overruling his objection to the magistrate's decision granting ODRC's motion for judgment on the pleadings. We disagree.

{¶ 27} "Pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C), a judgment on the pleadings is appropriate if the court finds that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." State ex rel. Madison Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2016-01-003, 2016-Ohio-7191, ¶ 28. "Civ.R. 12(C) motions are specifically for resolving questions of law." Tyler v. W. Brown Local School, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2017-11-013, 2018-Ohio-3624, ¶ 6, citing Whaley v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 92 Ohio St.3d 574, 581 (2001). "A trial court's decision on a Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings is reviewed by an appellate court de novo." JDH Mgmt. Group, L.L.C. v. Pierce, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2017-07-100, 2018-Ohio-706, ¶ 13, citing Golden v. Milford Exempted Village School Bd. of Edn., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2008-10-097, 2009-Ohio-3418, ¶ 6. A Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted where an inmate fails to meet the procedural requirements set forth in R.C. 2969.25 for an inmate to bring a civil action against a government entity or government employee. See State ex rel. Martin v. Collins, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 09AP-329, 2009-Ohio-5026, ¶ 17.

{¶ 28} Within his four assignments of error, Hill makes a variety of arguments challenging the trial court's decision overruling his objection to the magistrate's decision granting ODRC's motion for judgment on the pleadings. However, even when accepting Hill's allegations as true, we find no error in the trial court's decision. This is because, just as the trial court found, Hill's affidavit of prior litigation fails to satisfy the requirements set forth in R.C. 2969.25(A). For example, while Hill's affidavit does include the case number and court for the two civil actions Hill listed in his affidavit, the affidavit does not provide a brief description of the nature of those two cases as required by R.C. 2969.25(A)(1). Hill's affidavit also does not contain the case name for each of those two cases as required by R.C. 2969.25(A)(2) or the names of parties involved in each of those two cases as required by R.C. 2969.25(A)(3). "[T]he statute requires strict compliance." State ex rel. Swanson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 156 Ohio St.3d 408, 2019-Ohio-1271, ¶ 6. "Noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) warrants dismissal of the complaint." Martin v. McKnight, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 08AP-633, 2008-Ohio-6914, ¶ 9, citing State ex rel. Graham v. Niemeyer, 106 Ohio St.3d 466, 2005-Ohio-5522, ¶ 5.

{¶ 29} Hill's affidavit of indigence also fails to satisfy the requirements set forth in R.C. 2969.25(C). This holds true despite Hill's claims that he "made every attempt available" to secure a statement certified by the Warren Correctional Institution cashier setting forth his account balance for each of the preceding six months as required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). This is because, as noted by the Ohio Supreme Court, "R.C. 2969.25(C) demands strict compliance, so an inmate's explanation for noncompliance is not relevant." State ex rel. Ellis v. Wainwright, 157 Ohio St.3d 279, 2019-Ohio-2853, ¶ 7, citing State ex rel. Powe v. Lanzinger, 156 Ohio St.3d 358, 2019-Ohio-954, ¶ 7. Hill's affidavit further failed to provide a statement setting forth all other "things of value" that he owned at the time he filed his complaint. R.C. 2969.25(C)(2) required Hill's affidavit of indigence to include such a statement. Just like with the requirements set forth in R.C. 2969.25(A), "[f]ailure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) also warrants dismissal." Martin at ¶ 9, citing State ex rel. Pamer v. Collier, 108 Ohio St.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-1507, ¶ 5, citing State ex rel. Foster v. Belmont Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 107 Ohio St.3d 195, 2005-Ohio-6184, ¶ 5.

{¶ 30} The Ohio Supreme Court has "consistently affirmed the judgments of courts of appeals dismissing inmates' civil suits against the government when the complaints or petitions have not included a complete affidavit of prior actions." State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 155 Ohio St.3d 216, 2018-Ohio-4200, ¶ 6, citing State ex rel. Sands v. Bunting, 150 Ohio St.3d 325, 2017-Ohio-5697, ¶ 3; and Robinson v. LaRose, 147 Ohio St.3d 473, 2016-Ohio-7647, ¶ 11. The Ohio Supreme Court has also routinely "affirmed judgments dismissing inmates' civil-suit complaints or petitions when an inmate has sought a waiver of the filing fees but has failed to supply the necessary affidavits." Id., citing State ex rel. Davenport v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 255, 2016-Ohio-3414, ¶ 1-3; and State ex rel. Ridenour v. Brunsman, 117 Ohio St.3d 260, 2008-Ohio-854, ¶ 5. Therefore, because Hill failed to meet the procedural requirements set forth in R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C) to bring a civil action against a government entity or employee, we find no error in the trial court's decision overruling Hill's objection to the magistrate's decision granting ODRC's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C). Accordingly, Hill's four assignments of error lack merit and are overruled.

{¶ 31} Judgment affirmed.

HENDRICKSON, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.


Summaries of

Hill v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr.

COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY
Nov 9, 2020
2020 Ohio 5234 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
Case details for

Hill v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr.

Case Details

Full title:BENJAMEN HILL, Appellant, v. OHIO DEPT. OF REHABILITATION & CORRECTIONS…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY

Date published: Nov 9, 2020

Citations

2020 Ohio 5234 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)