To determine whether the statute applies to a political subdivision or its employees, Ohio courts use a three-tier analysis. Lambert v. Clancy, 125 Ohio St. 3d 231, 2010-Ohio-1483, 927 N.E.2d 585, ¶ 8 (citing Smith v. McBride, 130 Ohio St. 3d 51, 2011-Ohio-4674, 955 N.E.2d 954, ¶13). First, Ohio law contains blanket immunity for political subdivisions:

The Court must therefore engage in a three-tiered analysis to determine whether Defendant Township is entitled to immunity. See Lambert v. Clancy, 125 Ohio St. 3d 231, 927 N.E.2d 585, 2010 Ohio 1483, ¶ 10. First, § 2744.02(A) provides a general grant of immunity in that political subdivisions "are not liable in damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to person or property allegedly caused by any act or omission of the political subdivision or an employee of the political subdivision in connection with a governmental or proprietary function."

There is a three-tiered analysis involved in determining whether a political subdivision is immune from liability under Ohio law. Range v. Douglas, 763 F.3d 573, 582–83 (6th Cir.2014) (citing Lambert v. Clancy, 125 Ohio St.3d 231, 927 N.E.2d 585, 588 (2010) ); Elston v. Howland Local Schs., 113 Ohio St.3d 314, 865 N.E.2d 845, 848 (2007). First, the court must determine if an entity qualifies for the general grant of immunity under Ohio Rev.Code § 2744.02 : “a political subdivision is not liable in damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to person or property allegedly caused by any act or omission of the political subdivision or an employee of the political subdivision in connection with a governmental or proprietary function.”

In 1985, Ohio passed the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, codified in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2744 and governing state immunity for political subdivisions and their employees. Lambert v. Clancy, 125 Ohio St.3d 231, 927 N.E.2d 585, 588 (2010). For provisions that have since been amended, we use the version that was in place in 1991, at the time Douglas abused the bodies of Appling and Hicks.

. A “political subdivision” includes any “county,” id. § 2744.02(F), or “the elected holder of an office of a political subdivision who is sued in an official capacity,” Lambert v. Clancy, 927 N.E.2d 585, 591 (Ohio 2010). “The . . . maintenance, and operation of jails” is a “governmental function.”

{¶ 13} In determining whether a political subdivision is immune from tort liability under R.C. Chapter 2744, courts apply a three-tiered analysis. Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215, 2003-Ohio-3319, 790 N.E.2d 781, ¶ 7; Lambert v. Clancy, 125 Ohio St.3d 231, 2010-Ohio-1483, 927 N.E.2d 585, ¶ 8. The first tier involves the general grant of immunity of R.C. 2744.02(A)(1), which provides that “a political subdivision is not liable in damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to person or property allegedly caused by any act or omission of the political subdivision or an employee of the political subdivision in connection with a governmental or proprietary function.”

The Ohio Supreme Court established a three-tier analysis to determine whether a political subdivision is entitled to immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744. Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215, 2003-Ohio-3319, 790 N.E.2d 781, ¶ 7; Lambert v. Clancy, 125 Ohio St.3d 231, 2010-Ohio-1483, 927 N.E.2d 585, ¶ 8.

The Ohio Supreme Court has delineated a three-tiered analysis in determining whether a political subdivision has immunity. Smith v. McBride, 130 Ohio St.3d 51, 2011-Ohio-4674, 955 N.E.2d 954, ¶ 13, citing Colbert v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 215, 2003-Ohio-3319, 790 N.E.2d 781; Lambert v. Clancy, 125 Ohio St.3d 231, 2010-Ohio-1483, 927 N.E.2d 585. First, the party alleging immunity

The allegations in a complaint directed against an officeholder or employee in an official capacity is an action against the entity itself. Lambert v. Clancy , 125 Ohio St.3d 231, 2010-Ohio-1483, 927 N.E.2d 585, paragraph one of the syllabus. Accordingly, in this context only, we refer to Green, Mr. Neugebauer, and Ms. Calta collectively as the "Green Defendants."

{¶ 15} A complainant may sue an elected official in either his or her official capacity or in his or her individual capacity. See Lambert v. Clancy, 125 Ohio St.3d 231, 2010-Ohio-1483, 927 N.E.2d 585. When the complainant sues an elected official in his or her individual capacity, R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) applies and the official will be immune from suit unless the complainant can show that one of the exceptions set forth in that subdivision applies.