Robert Martin v. Shirley Rogers, Warden, 94-LW-2359
| Decision Date | 03 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | 94-LW-2359,9-93-47 |
| Parties | ROBERT MARTIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT v. SHIRLEY ROGERS, WARDEN, ET AL., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE CASE |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court.
MR ROBERT MARTIN, #138186, P.O. Box 57, Marion, Ohio 43302 In propria persona.
MR. R. PAUL CUSHION, Assistant Attorney General, Reg. No. 0037116, State Office Tower, 615 West Superior Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44113, For Appellee.
Appellant Robert Martin appeals pro se from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Marion County dismissing his complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B) (6).
Appellant, an inmate at Marion Correctional Institution, filed a complaint against several prison officials alleging a breach of the duty imposed upon them pursuant to R.C. 2921.44(C) and a violation of Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.Code. The defendants were apparently sued in both their individual and official capacities.
Upon motion made by appellees, the trial court dismissed appellant's complaint finding that his claims were essentially tort claims under state law and, to the extent appellant alleged a claim for relief under Section 1983, he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Appellant asserts two assignments of error on appeal, the first of which is:
It is plain error and an abuse of discretion for a trial court to dismiss an indigent's civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 where the facts of the complaint state a cause of action for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and the plaintiff filed a properly supported summary judgment motion under [C]ivil (R)ule 56(C) with affidavit based on personal knowledge asserting there were no material issues of fact, the defendant's [sic] did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, and, as a matter of law, damages were warranted, which the defendant's [sic] never responded to controvert with any admissible evidence.
Appellees having failed to file a brief on appeal, this court "may accept the appellant's statement of the facts and issues as correct and reverse the judgment if appellant's brief reasonably appears to sustain such action." App.R. 18(C).
A complaint cannot be dismissed pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted unless it appears "'beyond doubt from the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to recovery."' Border City S. & L. Assn. v. Moan (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 65, 66, 15 OBR 159, 160, 472 N.E.2d 350, 351 (citing O'Brien v. University Community Tenants Union (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 71 O.O.2d 223, 327 N.E.2d 753, syllabus; Royce v. Smith (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 106, 108, 22 O.O.3d 332, 333, 429 N.E.2d 134, 136; Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 608, 610-611, 23 O.O.3d 504, 506, 433 N.E.2d 572, 575; Dickerhoof v. Canton (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 128, 129, 6 OBR 186, 187, 451 N.E.2d 1193, 1194. In determining whether a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should be granted, the material allegations of the complaint are taken as admitted. State ex rel. Alford v. Willoughby Civil Serv. Comm. (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 221, 12 O.O.3d 229, 390 N.E.2d 782.
Civ.R. 8(A)(1) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief * * *". In Border City S. & L., supra, the Supreme Court of Ohio found that a complaint was not rendered "fatally defective and subject to dismissal [because] each element of [the] cause of action was not set forth in the complaint with crystalline specificity."
Appellant's complaint is handwritten and inartfully drafted. A pro se complaint of violation of federal civil rights, however, must be liberally construed and is held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Estelle v. Gamble (1976), 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (citing Haines v. Kerner (1972), 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652).
Deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs states a cause of action under Section 1983. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-105, 97 S.Ct. at 291, 50 L.Ed.2d at, 260. We find that appellant's complaint is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon 'which relief could be granted pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B) (6). Appellant alleges indifference to his medical needs which resulted in a deprivation of his rights guaranteed by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
This case must be remanded for further proceedings as to the sufficiency of the claim and its merits.
We affirm so much of the trial court's judgment as dismisses the appellant's claims which are based on state law. Pursuant to R.C. 2743.02(F) and R.C. 9.86, those claims were properly dismissed. In order for such claims to be brought against state employees, an action to determine whether those employees are entitled to immunity must first be filed in the Court of Claims. Conley v. Shearer (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 284, 595 N.E.2d 862; State ex rel. Sandusky v. Lucas Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 78, 573 N.E.2d 606; Mullins v. Birchfield (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 170, 623 N.E.2d 651.
R.C. 2743.02(F) and R.C. 9.86 do not apply to actions brought against state employees based on federal law. Conley, 64 Ohio St.3d at 292, 595 N.E.2d at 869. As noted in Conley, R.C. 9.86 applies only to civil actions arising under state law.
That portion of appellant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial