State, ex rel. Freeman v. Morris
| Decision Date | 13 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-795,90-795 |
| Citation | 62 Ohio St.3d 107,579 N.E.2d 702 |
| Parties | The STATE, ex rel. FREEMAN, Appellant, v. MORRIS, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
On February 1, 1990, appellant, Jerome Blair Freeman, an inmate of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, filed a complaint in mandamus against appellee, Terry L. Morris, the warden of the facility, contending that appellant was unlawfully incarcerated. The complaint essentially charged (1) that appellant's parole from previous convictions was revoked in 1978 after his maximum sentence had expired, thus depriving appellee of any authority to hold appellant in the first place, and (2) that appellee ignored a February 26, 1988 order to release appellant on parole.
Appellee was served on February 5, 1990. On March 2, 1990, appellant filed a motion for default judgment because appellee had not answered. Appellee, on March 7, 1990, filed an untimely motion to dismiss, contending that the issues were res judicata, having previously been litigated in the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, the Hamilton County Municipal Court, and the Ohio Court of Claims. The court of appeals dismissed the cause on March 27, 1990, stating that the "issues herein have been previously litigated and denied." The court also dismissed the pending motions as moot.
Appellant filed a "motion to amend judgment," on April 9, 1990, contending several errors and requesting the court of appeals to change its March 27 judgment entry to a default judgment for appellant. On April 13, 1990, appellant filed an "application for a writ of habeas corpus to attend court in mandamus proceedings pending default." Appellant, on April 26, 1990, filed a "motion for summary discharge and judgment on the pleadings," contending that appellee had made no appearance in either the mandamus or habeas corpus actions and that he was entitled to relief. The court of appeals denied appellant's motion to amend judgment.
The cause is before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Jerome Blair Freeman, pro se.
Lee I. Fisher, Atty. Gen., and Steven P. Fixler, for appellee.
Appellant raises four propositions of law on appeal:
(1) that the trial court erred by dismissing all his claims without making an express finding that "there is no just reason for delay," as required by Civ.R. 54(B);
(2) that the trial court erred by granting appellee's untimely motion to dismiss and not granting appellant's timely motion for default judgment;
(3) that the trial court erred by not hearing fully appellant's habeas corpus claim; and
(4) that the trial court erred in not granting the relief appellant requested.
Appellee's brief does not attempt to answer any of these contentions, but instead simply states that the matter is res judicata and that appellant has no right to parole.
Appellant's first, third, and fourth propositions of law are easily dealt with. The court of appeals dismissed appellant's mandamus complaint before he filed his "application" to add a claim of habeas corpus. Therefore, there were no multiple claims to be considered under Civ.R. 54(B) (proposition of law No. 1), and the court did not err by not considering his habeas corpus claim because the case was decided before he filed it (proposition of law No. 3). Moreover, appellant has not yet proved his case; therefore, the court of appeals did not err by not granting the relief he seeks (proposition of law No. 4).
Proposition of law No. 2 is more problematic.
The court of appeals' dismissal of the case is clearly based on certain attachments to appellee's motion to dismiss filed below. These include an amended complaint for a writ of mandamus filed in the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County in November 1988, which named appellee, among others, as a respondent and also raised the issues raised in this case; the appellate court's judgment entry of December 19, 1988 dismissing the complaint; and various other complaints filed in 1988 and 1989 in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, the Hamilton County Municipal Court, and the Ohio Court of Claims seeking injunctive relief and damages against appellee and others. All the attachments, with varying degrees of specificity, refer to the unlawful revocation of appellant's parole in 1978 after his maximum sentence had expired.
However, the court of appeals permitted appellee to file the untimely motion to dismiss without a motion asserting excusable neglect or proof of same, both of which are required by Civ.R. 6(B)(2) and (D). Moreover, it based its decision on matters outside the pleadings--the aforementioned attachment to the motion to dismiss. Therefore, it treated the case as if it were converting the motion to dismiss into a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LaMusga v. Summit Square Rehab, LLC
...Thomas v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2011-Ohio-6712, 969 N.E.2d 1284, ¶ 35 and fn. 1 (2d Dist.), citing State ex rel. Freeman v. Morris, 62 Ohio St.3d 107, 579 N.E.2d 702 (1991). However, since the motion was also brought under Civ.R. 12(C), any error in this regard would be harmless, unles......
-
Krohn v. Ostafi
...12(B)." State ex rel. Green v. Wetzel, 158 Ohio St.3d 104, 2019-Ohio-4228, -- N.E.3d --, ¶ 6, citing State ex rel. Freeman v. Morris, 62 Ohio St.3d 107, 109, 579 N.E.2d 702 (1991). Clearly, if the trial court's dismissal was based on res judicata, that dismissal is likewise in error. {¶ 53}......
-
Holmes v. Crawford Mach. Inc.
...in a Civ.R. 12(B) motion. Hillman v. Edwards, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-950, 2011-Ohio-2677, ¶14, citing State ex rel. Freeman v. Morris (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 107, 109, 579 N.E.2d 702. "The necessity of relying on matters outside the pleadings to establish res judicata also precludes the use of a......
-
State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.
...appeals did not consider the answer and, further, could not in a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) determination. See, e.g., State ex rel. Freeman v. Morris (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 107, 579 N.E.2d 702. This is not a case which falls under one of the recognized exceptions to the general requirement of notice pl......