From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

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

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District
Sep 30, 2021
2021 Ohio 3500 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)

Opinion

20AP325

09-30-2021

Darrell White, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction, Defendant-Appellee.

Dave Yost, Attorney General, Anne Berry Strait, and Samantha J. Scherger, for appellee. Darrell White, pro se.


APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio (Ct. of Cl. No. 2020-00160JD)

On brief:

Dave Yost, Attorney General, Anne Berry Strait, and Samantha J. Scherger, for appellee.

Darrell White, pro se.

DECISION

Hess, J.

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Darrell White appeals a judgment of the Ohio Court of Claims that dismissed his action against defendant-appellee, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"). For the following reasons, we affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} White is incarcerated in an Ohio correctional institution. On March 5, 2020, he filed a complaint against ODRC. In the complaint, White alleged that there is a current COVID-19 pandemic and that he notified prison staff of the dangers of COVID-19. He alleged that ODRC deprived him of reasonable care for failure to provide him with the necessary required preventative equipment "such as chemical mask and chemical suit" and by failing to provide its employees with "training and equipment to prevent exposure, contact and spread" of COVID-19. He further alleged that as of the date of the filing of his complaint he is of good health and is not infected. White asserts if he were not incarcerated, he would have "all preventative equipment and [be] around trained people" to prevent him from becoming infected. He contended that ODRC is "liable for plaintiffs injury, damages, losses, and mental and emotional stress" and that he has suffered "health and mental stress being around a poisonous environment with no testing for the virus" and has been placed "at risk of unnecessary exposure" to the virus. White also contended that ODRC is retaliating against him and harassing him because he won a case against ODRC in 2010.

{¶3} ODRC responded to White's complaint with a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1), arguing that the trial court should dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. ODRC contended that White's complaint raises a challenge to the conditions of his confinement, which is an Eighth Amendment claim, and a claim of retaliation, and that both of these claims arise under 42 U.S.C. 1983. ODRC argued that the Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction and lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over constitutional claims arising under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The trial court found that White sought recovery for the conditions under which he was incarcerated, which is a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Because such a claim is not cognizable in the Court of Claims, the trial court dismissed White's action. White appealed.

II. Assignments of Error

{¶4} White presents the following assignments of error:

1. The trial court error in it's [sic] decision making in determining lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
2. The trial court error in determining in it's [sic] decision whether any cause of action cognizable by the forum has been raised in the complaint.
3. The trial court error in not upholding identical or similar trial verdict law in Case No. 2010-04696 Ohio Court of Claims between specifically Darrell White vs. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. And Correction specifically and particularly.
4. The trial court error in not taking personal jurisdiction to adjudicate triable issues.

III. Law and Analysis

{¶5} Because White's assignments of error are interrelated, we address them jointly. White asserts that the trial court erred in granting ODRC's motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1) because his lawsuit is similar in nature to a suit he brought in 2010, which stated a negligence claim involving an inmate-on-inmate assault. He argues that he notified ODRC of the danger he faced from COVID-19, ODRC had a duty to protect him from the danger and has failed to do so. He argues that it is analogous to a situation where a dangerous inmate poses a threat, he notifies ODRC of the threat, and ODRC fails to take steps to protect him from the dangerous inmate. ODRC responds that the Court of Claims correctly dismissed White's claims because they are all classic challenges to the conditions of his confinement: an inmate's complaint about exposure to health issues is a condition of confinement claim.

{¶6} Under Civ.R. 12(B)(1), a defendant may move for a dismissal of the complaint where the trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Guillory v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 07AP-861, 2008-Ohio-2299, ¶ 6. Subject-matter jurisdiction involves a court's power to hear and decide a case on the merits. Lowery v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 14AP-730, 2015-Ohio-869, ¶ 6. A court must dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if the complaint fails to allege any cause of action cognizable in the forum. Brown v. Levin, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-349, 2012-Ohio-5768, ¶ 14. An appellate court reviews a trial court's decision on a Civ.R. 12(B)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under a de novo standard of review. Cotten v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 18AP-240, 2018-Ohio-3392, ¶ 6, citing Pankey v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 13AP-701, 2014-Ohio-2907, ¶ 7.

{¶7} White captioned his complaint as one for "Negligence and Future Claims." However, "[t]he mere fact that claims in a complaint are couched in certain legal terms is insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon a court." Guillory at ¶ 11, citing State ex rel. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. v. Henson, 102 Ohio St.3d 349, 2004-Ohio-3208, 810 N.E.2d 953, ¶ 19. In determining whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims, the court must look to the body of the complaint and examine the underlying nature of the claims. Guillory at ¶ 11, citing Henson at ¶ 20.

{¶8} Based on our de novo review of the pleadings, we agree with the trial court that one of the claims set forth in White's complaint alleges that ODRC is retaliating against him because he won a prior case against them. The portion of White's complaint that asserts a retaliation challenge is, as this court has noted, properly construed as a constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Cotten v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 13AP-935, 2014-Ohio-2619 ¶ 18, citing Guillory at ¶ 12 (an inmate's claims regarding retaliatory conduct are properly classified as constitutional claims actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and, thus, cannot be brought in the Court of Claims).

{¶9} The remainder of White's complaint asserts claims that can be categorized as claims based upon the conditions of White's confinement. White repeatedly alleges that ODRC failed to provide him with "chemical mask and a chemical suit" to prevent his exposure to an airborne virus and failed to "provide the necessary required preventative equipment." Federal law 42 U.S.C. 1983 provides" 'a cause of action for deprivation under color of state law, of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.'" Stoudemire v. Mich. Dept. of Corr., 705 F.3d 560, 567 (6th Cir. 2013), quoting Jones v. Muskegon Cty., 625 F.3d 935, 940-41 (6th Cir. 2010). State prisoners may use 42 U.S.C. 1983 to file civil rights actions to challenge the conditions of their confinement as violative of the Eighth Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment.

"The Constitution 'does not mandate comfortable prisons,' but neither does it permit inhumane ones, and ... 'the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment.'" "A prison official's 'deliberate indifference' to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate violates the Eighth Amendment."
The Eighth Amendment's deliberate indifference framework includes both an objective and subjective prong. To satisfy the objective prong, an inmate must show "that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm." Under the subjective prong, an official must "know[ ] of and disregard[ ] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety." "[I]t is
enough that the official acted or failed to act despite his knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm." "It is, indeed, fair to say that acting or failing to act with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to a prisoner is the equivalent of recklessly disregarding that risk." "[P]rison officials who actually knew of a substantial risk to inmate health or safety may be found free from liability if they responded reasonably to the risk, even if the harm ultimately was not averted." (Citations omitted.)(Brackets sic.)
Wilson v. Williams, 961 F.3d 829, 839-40 (6th Cir. 2020) (discussing prisoners' COVID-19 related Eighth Amendment claims). "This court has determined that inmate's claims related to the conditions of his or her confinement are also properly classified as claims arising under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and, thus, not actionable in the Court of Claims." Jackson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 19AP-621, 2020-Ohio-1518, ¶ 13.

{¶10} Here, White's complaint states facts that could form a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C.1983 based upon the conditions of his confinement. By allegedly not providing inmates with personal protective equipment and not adequately training staff, ODRC has arguably failed in its Eighth Amendment duty to maintain White's reasonable safety. As an infectious disease with a relatively high mortality rate, COVID-19 poses a substantial risk of serious harm to prison inmates. Wilson at 833 ("COVID-19 virus is highly infectious and can be transmitted easily from person to person. COVID-19 fatality rates increase with age and underlying health conditions * * * If contracted, COVID-19 can cause severe complications or death."). In his complaint, White alleges that ODRC was aware of the dangers of COVID-19 but did not do enough to keep him reasonably safe and prevent his exposure to the disease. The trial court did not err in construing White's complaint as potentially setting forth a Section 1983 claim.

{¶11} Although White's complaint alleges that ODRC's "conduct is negligent" and ODRC breached its reasonable duty of care to provide protective equipment, his use of the legal terms "negligent" and "duty of care" are insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon a court. Jackson at ¶ 18, citing Guillory at ¶ 11. When we review the body of his complaint and the underlying nature of the claims asserted to determine the nature of his claim, we find that the gist of White's complaint is that he was not provided sufficient protective equipment to protect him from COVID-19, which speaks directly to the conditions of his confinement. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993) (complaint alleging a failure to adequately protect against airborne containments contained in cigarette smoke states a condition of confinement claim related to the adequacy of medical care).

{¶12} As a court of limited jurisdiction, the Court of Claims of Ohio has no subject-matter jurisdiction over alleged violations of constitutional rights. Cotten at ¶ 9. Thus, the trial court properly dismissed White's complaint asserting constitutional claims arising under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1).

IV. Conclusion

{¶13} We overrule White's assignments of error and affirm the judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio.

Judgment affirmed.

DORRIAN and SCHUSTER, JJ., concur.

HESS, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by assignment in the Tenth Appellate District.


Summaries of

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

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District
Sep 30, 2021
2021 Ohio 3500 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
Case details for

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

Case Details

Full title:Darrell White, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation …

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

Date published: Sep 30, 2021

Citations

2021 Ohio 3500 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)