Henderson v. State, 101862
| Decision Date | 07 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 101862,101862 |
| Citation | 2015 Ohio 1742 |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
| Parties | TROY HENDERSON PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE v. STATE OF OHIO, ET AL. DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS |
FOR APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE
Troy Henderson, pro se
Chardon, OH 44024
Mike DeWine
Ohio Attorney General
Halli Brownfield Watson
Tiffany L. Carwile
Renata Y. Staff
Assistant Attorneys General
Constitutional Offices Section
30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
Brian R. Gutkoski
Assistant County Prosecutor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee, Troy Henderson, appeals the Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(6) dismissal of his complaint against defendants-appellees, the state of Ohio, the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office, and Assistant Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Carrie Heindrichs, and the denial of his motion for summary judgment. Cross-appellants, the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office and Carrie Heindrichs (hereinafter, the prosecutors), appeal the denials of their request for leave to respond, instanter, to Henderson's motion to dismiss, their motion to strike Henderson's poverty affidavits, their motion to deem matters admitted and to compel discovery, and their motion to perpetuate discovery. Further, the prosecutors appeal the dismissal of their counterclaim seeking to have Henderson declared a vexatious litigator under R.C. 2323.52. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court's decision to dismiss Henderson's complaint and deny the prosecutors' motion to strike Henderson's poverty affidavit, but reverse the court's dismissal of the prosecutors' counterclaim and the denial of all related motions.
{¶2} In 2011, the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury returned a four-count indictment charging Henderson with grand theft auto, receiving stolen property, forgery, and tampering with records. The indictment stemmed from a complaint filed by Henderson's former girlfriend and mother of his child that accused Henderson of stealing her vehicle and several other items from her home. Acting in his own defense, Henderson was found not guilty on all counts following a jury trial.
{¶3} On March 24, 2014, Henderson filed a complaint against the state of Ohio, the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, and Assistant County Prosecutor Carrie Heindrichs, alleging claims of 1) interfering with civil rights; 2) dereliction of duty; 3) negligent supervision; 4) negligence; and 5) fraud, seeking money damages and unspecified equitable relief from thedefendants, for their involvement with the prosecution of his case. Along with the complaint, Henderson filed a poverty affidavit so that he would not have to put a down payment on court costs. On April 25, 2014, the prosecutors filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and also filed a counterclaim requesting that Henderson be declared a vexatious litigator pursuant to R.C. 2323.52. On the 28th of April, the state of Ohio responded to Henderson's complaint by filing a motion to dismiss, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Civ.R. 12(B)(1), and for failure to state a claim under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
{¶4} On April 30, 2014, the prosecutors gave notice to the court that they served requests for admissions, interrogatories, and production of documents on Henderson in connection with his complaint and their counterclaim. On May 5, 2014, Henderson filed a brief in opposition to the prosecutors' and state's motions to dismiss, and on June 3, 2014, Henderson filed his answer to the prosecutors' counterclaim. Along with his answer, Henderson filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss the counterclaim. Missing the deadline to file a response to the motion to dismiss, the prosecutors asked for leave to file a brief in opposition, instanter, on June 19, 2014. Prior to this, the prosecutors also filed a motion to deem matters admitted and compel discovery due to Henderson's failure to respond to their request for admissions and discovery documents. The prosecutors also filed a motion to perpetuate discovery and a motion to strike Henderson's poverty affidavit. On July 1, 2014, Henderson filed a motion for summary judgment on his claims.
{¶5} The court granted the prosecutors' motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and the state's motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(6) on July 31, 2014, and denied as moot Henderson's motion for summary judgment on the claims. That same day, thecourt also denied the prosecutors' motion to strike Henderson's poverty affidavit and their request for leave to file, instanter, a brief in opposition to Henderson's motion to dismiss. The court then granted Henderson's motion to dismiss the counterclaim against him. As a result of the dismissal of the complaints, the court denied as "moot" the prosecutor's motion to deem matters admitted and compel discovery and their motion to perpetuate discovery.
{¶6} Henderson contends that the trial court committed reversible error by granting the defendants' motions to dismiss and abused its discretion by not granting his motion for summary judgment.
{¶7} A Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted tests the sufficiency of a complaint. In order for a trial court to dismiss a complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), it must appear beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle him to the relief sought. O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 245, 327 N.E.2d 753 (1975); LeRoy v. Allen, Yurasek & Merklin, 114 Ohio St.3d 323, 2007-Ohio-3608, 872 N.E.2d 254, ¶ 14. "The allegations of the complaint must be taken as true, and those allegations and any reasonable inferences drawn from them must be construed in the nonmoving party's favor." Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101373, 2015-Ohio-421, ¶ 7. Appellate courts review a trial court's decision to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) de novo. Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79, 2004-Ohio-4362, 814 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 5.
{¶8} In their motion to dismiss, the prosecutors contend that Henderson did not plead sufficient facts, if accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Further, they contend that they have absolute immunity or statutory immunity, or both.
{¶9} The prosecutors suggest that because Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 and Ohio Civ.R. 8 () are "virtually identical" and "the Ohio Rule was based on the Federal Rule," citing DiGiorgio v. Cleveland, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95945, 2011-Ohio-5878, ¶ 41, this court should adopt the federal interpretation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 requirements laid out in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed. 929 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbol, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d. 868 (2009), that requires a complaint contain sufficient factual matter that, if accepted as true, states a claim for relief that is plausible upon its face. This court has recently explained, in great detail, the reasons we decline to adopt the federal pleading standard. See Tuleta v. Med. Mut. of Ohio, 2014-Ohio-396, 6 N.E.3d 106 (8th Dist.). Therefore, we decline to review the complaint under the heightened Twombly/Iqbol standard and proceed to review the complaint under the Ohio notice pleading standard.
{¶10} Under the notice pleading requirements of Civ.R. 8(A)(1), the plaintiff need only plead sufficient, operative facts to support recovery under his claims. Doe v. Robinson, 6th Dist. Lucas No. 1-07-1051, 2007-Ohio-5746, ¶ 17. Nevertheless, to constitute fair notice, the complaint must still allege sufficient underlying facts that relate to and support the alleged claim, and may not simply state legal conclusions. See DeVore v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 32 Ohio App.2d 36, 38, 288 N.E.2d 202 (7th Dist.1972).
{¶11} Even under the lower pleading standard, we agree with the prosecutors that Henderson's complaint is almost entirely devoid of the necessary underlying facts needed to support his claims of interfering with civil rights, dereliction of duty, negligent supervision,negligence, and fraud.1 In support of his claims, Henderson generally only asserts bare legal conclusions. However, Henderson does assert that the defendants permitted perjured testimony during the criminal trial and the defendants concealed evidence favorable to him during the criminal prosecution and then cites to attached exhibits as evidence of the concealment . Henderson then incorporates these allegations by reference under each claim. This is enough to put the prosecutors on notice of at least those alleged acts that might support his claims.
{¶12} However, even if we assume that Henderson has complied with the Civ.R. 8 pleading standard for his claims of interfering with civil rights, dereliction of duty, negligent supervision, and negligence, we agree with the prosecutors that they are absolutely immune.
{¶13} Ohio Revised Code Section 2744.03(A)(7) provides as follows:
The political subdivision, and an employee who is a county prosecuting attorney, city director of law, village solicitor, or similar chief legal officer of a political subdivision, an assistant of any such person, or a judge of a court of this state is entitled to any defense or immunity available at common...
To continue reading
Request your trial