Opinion
Case No. 2019-01071JD
01-13-2021
JAMES SUDBERRY Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION Defendant
Magistrate Scott Sheets
ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
{¶1} Initially, the court notes that it previously dismissed some of plaintiff's claims, resulting in only the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction remaining as a defendant. Therefore, the caption of this case shall read as set out above.
{¶2} Before the court is defendant's November 13, 2020 motion for judgment on the pleadings. In seeking dismissal pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C), defendant asserts that plaintiff's complaint alleges facts relative to plaintiff's dissatisfaction with being incarcerated and with the way defendant operates its prisons but fails to set forth specific facts in support of his claims. Defendant also asserts that plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action based on alleged violations of its own policies. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS defendant's motion. As this decision will dispose of plaintiff's claims in their entirety, plaintiff's December 4, 2020 and December 11, 2020 motions are DENIED as moot.
{¶3} As stated in State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV v. Pontious, 75 Ohio St. 3d 565, 570 (1996):
Under Civ.R. 12(C), dismissal is appropriate where a court (1) construes the material allegations in the complaint, with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in favor of the nonmoving party as true, and (2) finds beyond doubt, that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Thus, Civ.R. 12(C) requires a
determination that no material factual issues exist and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (internal cites omitted).
{¶4} Plaintiff's complaint is a 50-page combination of the court's claim form for administrative determinations and a lengthy hand-written complaint which itself contains copies of documents and other hand-written materials. In the form portion, plaintiff indicates he seeks damages for "conspiracy, fraud, libel, slander, defamation of character, crookedness, injustice, white collar crime." His handwritten portion indicates he is bringing claims for, "conspiracy, fraud, libel, slander, defamation of character, crookedness, injustice, white collar crime-conspiracy." Plaintiff's complaint is a series of statements regarding plaintiff's personal history interspersed with statements regarding his time in prison. Quite frankly and with all due respect to plaintiff, his complaint lacks clarity and, at times, is rambling and incoherent. It is difficult to discern what facts, if any, form the basis of plaintiff's claim and it is also difficult to discern what claims plaintiff is attempting to assert.
{¶5} Despite having reviewed plaintiff's complaint several times, the court can discern no factual allegations which would support a claim for defamation, fraud or civil conspiracy. As for defamation, there are no details regarding any allegedly false statements published by defendant or any of its employee and there are no allegations regarding special damages. Watley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 07AP-902, 2008-Ohio-3691, ¶ 26. Likewise, there are no factual allegations of a misrepresentation made by defendant and relied upon by plaintiff such as would support a fraud claim. Wiles v. Miller, 10th Dist. No 12AP-989, 2013-Ohio-3625, ¶ 33. As for any claim of civil conspiracy, plaintiff makes no factual allegations regarding collusion with another by defendant or its employees with the intent to injure plaintiff. Defendant also correctly points out that a civil conspiracy claim is derivative and cannot be maintained in the absence of an underlying tort. Boddie v. Landers, 10th Dist. No. 15AP-962, 2016-Ohio-1410, ¶ 32. The court also finds that Ohio does not recognize civil claims for crookedness, injustice and white-collar crime.
{¶6} Defendant also raises other arguments regarding possible causes of actions which the court finds have merit. To the extent plaintiff is attempting to assert a wrongful imprisonment claim, the court agrees that plaintiff makes no allegation that he has been declared wrongfully imprisoned and also agrees that the court lacks jurisdiction to determine whether plaintiff is wrongfully imprisoned. Griffin v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab and Corr., 10th Dist. No. 10AP-733, 2011 Ohio 2115, ¶ 15. Finally, to the extent plaintiff seeks recovery based on defendant's alleged violation of its own internal rules or policies, no such cause of action exists. Triplett v. Warren Corr. Inst., 10th Dist. No. 12AP-728, 2013-Ohio-2743, ¶ 10.
{¶7} For all these reasons and despite construing the factual allegations in plaintiff's complaint as true, the court finds that plaintiff could prove no set of facts entitling him to relief. Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff's December 4, 2020 and December 11, 2020 motions are DENIED as moot. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.
/s/_________
DALE A. CRAWFORD
Judge Filed January 13, 2021
Sent to S.C. Reporter 3/23/21