State v. West
| Decision Date | 17 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2021-CA-17 |
| Citation | 2022 Ohio 2060 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. THOMAS M. WEST Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
2022-Ohio-2060
STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
THOMAS M. WEST Defendant-Appellant
No. 2021-CA-17
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Greene
June 17, 2022
Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court, No. 2020-CV-642
MEGAN A. HAMMOND, Atty. Reg. No. 0097714, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Greene County Prosecutor's Office, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
THOMAS M. WEST, Defendant-Appellant, Pro Se
OPINION
WELBAUM, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Thomas M. West, appeals pro se from a judgment of the Greene County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the State of Ohio summary judgment on its complaint to declare West a vexatious litigator under R.C. 2323.52. For the reasons outlined below, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 2} This appeal concerns a vexatious litigator action that arose from an underlying criminal case in the Greene County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2015-CR-129. In that case, West was tried by a jury and found guilty of one count of felonious assault with a firearm specification, two counts of having weapons while under disability, and one count of tampering with evidence; the trial court sentenced West to an aggregate term of seven years in prison. West appealed from his conviction, and this court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. State v. West, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2015-CA-72, 2017-Ohio-7521 ("West I").
{¶ 3} Following his direct appeal, West filed several pro se motions and pleadings with the trial court. The motions included, but were not limited to, a "Motion for Matters Occurring Before the Grand Jury," a "Motion to Waive Court Costs," and a "Motion to Adjudicate Legitimacy of the Allege[d] Indictment." The trial court denied each of these motions, which West appealed by filing two separate appeals in this court. This court consolidated the two appeals and ultimately affirmed the trial court's denial of West's motions. State v. West, 2d Dist. Greene Nos. 2020-CA-22, 2020-CA-24, 2020-Ohio-
{¶ 4} On December 28, 2020, shortly after our decision in West II, the State filed a civil complaint in the Greene County Court of Common Pleas requesting the trial court to declare West a vexatious litigator under R.C. 2323.52. In its complaint, the State alleged that West had repeatedly and persistently filed post-conviction motions that challenged the legitimacy of his indictment and the trial court's jurisdiction based on a sovereign citizen theory that had been denied by the trial court on multiple occasions.[1]
{¶ 5} That same day, December 28, 2020, the State also filed a motion for summary judgment. In its motion, the State argued that the sheer number of pro se filings submitted by West and West's continuous assertion of meritless arguments that had previously been rejected by the trial court established that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether West was a vexatious litigator under R.C. 2323.52. In support of its summary judgment motion, the State attached 111 exhibits.[2] These exhibits included all of the filings in the underlying criminal matter, as well as the filings in the related appeals to this court.
{¶ 6} The trial court provided West a deadline of March 12, 2021, to respond to the State's motion for summary judgment. West filed a pro se response to the State's motion on March 1, 2021. In his response, West alleged that a factual issue remained as to
whether the State had committed a "fraud upon the court" during his indictment. "Objections to Motion for Summary Judgment" (Mar. 1, 2021). Aside from his own self-serving affidavit, West did not provide any evidentiary materials to support this contention.
{¶ 7} On April 2, 2021, the trial court issued a decision granting the State's motion for summary judgment and designated West a vexatious litigator. In so holding, the trial court explained that R.C. 2323.52 only permitted it to consider filings that were civil in nature. From its review of the State's exhibits, the trial court determined that five of West's pro se filings were civil in nature. The trial court also found that the principal arguments in those filings were that the indictment was defective and that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court further found that West had repeatedly sought to obtain a transcript of the grand jury proceedings. The trial court therefore concluded that because West's arguments and transcript requests had been repeatedly raised and rejected by the court, the State had successfully established that there was no genuine issue of material fact that West was a vexatious litigator under R.C. 2323.52.
{¶ 8} West now appeals from the trial court's summary judgment ruling, raising five assignments of error for review.
Standard of Review
{¶ 9} Appellate review of a trial court's decision granting summary judgment is de novo. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671 N.E.2d 241. "De novo review requires an 'independent review of the trial court's decision without any deference to the trial court's determination.'" Jackson v. Internatl. Fiber, 169 Ohio App.3d 395, 2006-Ohio-5799, 863 N.E.2d 189, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.),
quoting State ex rel. AFSCME v. Taft, 156 Ohio App.3d 37, 2004-Ohio-493, 804 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 27 (3d Dist.); Riverside v. State, 2016-Ohio-2881, 64 N.E.3d 504, ¶ 21 (2d Dist).
{¶ 10} Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), a trial court may grant a moving party summary judgment when (1) there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) reasonable minds, after construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, can only conclude adversely to that party. Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367, 369-370, 696 N.E.2d 201 (1998).
{¶ 11} The moving party carries the initial burden of affirmatively demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact remains to be litigated. Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112, 115, 526 N.E.2d 798 (1988); Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). To that end, the movant must be able to point to evidentiary materials of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C) that a court is to consider in rendering summary judgment. Dresher at 292-293. Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to respond, with affidavits or as otherwise permitted by Civ.R. 56, setting forth specific facts that show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id.; Civ.R. 56(E).
First, Second, and Third Assignments of Error
{¶ 12} West's first three assignments of error all relate to the trial court's finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact that West was a vexatious litigator under
R.C. 2323.52. West argues that this decision was erroneous and that the trial court's summary judgment ruling improperly denied him his right to a jury trial. We, however, disagree.
{¶ 13} R.C. 2323.52, Ohio's vexatious litigator statute, was enacted to" 'prevent abuse of the system by those persons who persistently and habitually file lawsuits without reasonable grounds and/or otherwise engage in frivolous conduct in the trial courts of this state.'" Mayer v. Bristow, 91 Ohio St.3d 3, 13, 740 N.E.2d 656 (2000), quoting Cent. Ohio Transit Auth. v. Timson, 132 Ohio App.3d 41, 50, 724 N.E.2d 458 (10th Dist.1998). If a person is declared a vexatious litigator under R.C. 2323.52, he or she cannot institute or continue legal proceedings unless he or she first obtains leave from that specific court to move forward. R.C. 2323.52(D).
{¶ 14} Under R.C. 2323.52(B), a prosecuting attorney "who has defended against habitual and persistent vexatious conduct in the court of claims or in a court of appeals, court of common pleas, municipal court, or county court may commence a civil action in a court of common pleas with jurisdiction over the person who allegedly engaged in the habitual and persistent vexatious conduct to have that person declared a vexatious litigator." All elements of R.C. 2323.52(A)(3) must be established by clear and convincing evidence in order to have the person declared a vexatious litigator. Lasson v. Coleman, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21983, 2008-Ohio-4140, ¶ 33. Accord Madeira v. Oppenheimer, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200458, 2021-Ohio-2958, ¶ 8.
{¶ 15} Pursuant to R.C. 2323.52(A)(3), a "vexatious litigator" is:
[A]ny person who has habitually, persistently, and without
reasonable grounds engaged in vexatious conduct in a civil action or actions, whether in the court of claims or in a court of appeals, court of common pleas, municipal court, or county court, whether the person or another person instituted the civil action or actions, and whether the vexatious conduct was against the same party or against different parties in the civil action or actions.
{¶ 16} Pursuant to R.C. 2323.52(A)(2), the term "vexatious conduct" means: [C]onduct of a party in a civil action that satisfies any of the following:
(a) The conduct obviously serves merely to harass or maliciously injure another party to the civil action.
(b) The conduct is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
(c) The conduct is imposed solely for delay.
{¶ 17} "Vexatious conduct is not limited to proceedings before the trial court." Roo v. Sain, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-881, 2005-Ohio-2436, ¶ 13. The term "conduct" includes "the filing of a civil action, the assertion of a claim, defense, or other position in connection with a civil action, the filing of a pleading, motion, or other paper in a civil action, including, but not limited to, a motion or paper filed for discovery purposes, or the taking of any other action in connection with a civil action." R.C....
To continue reading
Request your trial