Turker v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Corrections

• Decision Date: 05 October 1998
• Docket Number: No. 96-3873,96-3873
• Parties: 74 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,692 Melda TURKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 453

157 F.3d 453

74 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,692

Melda TURKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS, et al Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-3873.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Submitted May 1, 1998.

Decided Oct. 5, 1998.

Melda Turker (briefed), Moreland Hills, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Robert L. Griffin, Asst. Attorney Gen. (briefed), Richard N. Coglianese, Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, James G. Petrie (briefed), Columbus, OH, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: JONES, MOORE, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge.

Pro se plaintiff-appellant Melda Turker appeals the district court's dismissal of her civil rights lawsuit seeking equitable and monetary relief against various state officials on the grounds that the district court misread our decisions in Leaman v. Ohio Dep't of Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities, 825 F.2d 946 (6th Cir.1987) (en banc) and Thomson v. Harmony, 65 F.3d 1314 (6th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S 1105, 116 S.Ct. 1321, 134 L.Ed.2d 473 (1996). Because neither Leaman nor Thomson bars Turker's quest for equitable relief in federal court, we hold that the district court erred in dismissing Turker's entire lawsuit.

I.

From 1976 until 1992, Turker was employed by defendant Ohio Department of Corrections ("ODRC"). She worked as a state jail inspector since 1980.

In 1991, several mayors of cities in Cuyahoga County complained to Ohio Lieutenant Governor Michael DeWine (who oversaw the ODRC) about "intense" scrutiny the jails in their cities were receiving from Turker in her effort to have the jails comply with state standards as reflected in the Ohio Administrative Code. Turker also discovered in December 1991 that Defendant-Appellee Jill Goldhart, Deputy Director of ODRC's Division of Parole and Community Services, was engaged in consulting work in violation of ODRC policy and state law. Turker reported this information to the Lieutenant Governor's office, which subsequently disciplined Goldhart.

On February 6, 1992, shortly after Turker gave an interview to the Cleveland Plain Dealer regarding the failure of several jails to conform to state standards, Defendant-Appellee Michael Lee, Bureau Chief of the Bureau of Adult Detention and Turker's supervisor, ordered her to relax her scrutiny of the jails in Cuyahoga County and terminate her ongoing investigations. Lee followed up this oral directive with a written one to the same effect on February 11, 1992.

Beginning in March 1992, the ODRC changed its travel reimbursement policy retroactive to January 3, 1992. Turker discussed these changes with an on-site supervisor who told her to continue following the old policy with the understanding that someone would contact her if it posed a problem. As a result, Turker continued submitting reimbursement reports under the old policy that were incorrect under the new policy. Nevertheless, her supervisor continued to approve those reports without ever alerting her to the inaccuracies. Not only did the supervisor fail to alert Turker to the inaccuracies in her reimbursement forms, but Lee, Goldhart, and others began covert surveillance of Turker's travel mileage and parking receipts. This surveillance lasted from April 1992 to September 1992. Those defendants (Lee, Goldhart, and others) then presented the information to the proper authorities at the ODRC who eventually terminated Turker on December 30, 1992 based upon the inaccuracies in her reimbursement reports.

After causing Turker's termination, those same defendants then presented the information to the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor who obtained a seventeen-count indictment against Turker. Following further investigation, the prosecutor moved to nolle prosequi the charges, which was recorded on August 31, 1994. Nevertheless, while the charges were still pending against Turker, on May 3, 1993, Defendant-Appellee James Buccieri, ODRC's Regional Director of the Adult Parole Authority, published to several employees within the ODRC the fact that Turker had been charged with theft.

On December 29, 1994, Turker, then represented by counsel, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, listing the ODRC, Goldhart, Lee, Buccieri, John Does I and II, and an unnamed Bureau Chief with the ODRC as defendants. All of the defendants are either agents or instrumentalities of the State of Ohio. In her complaint, Turker alleged violations of her civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, her constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and state law torts of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, wrongful discharge, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The only specific relief Turker sought in the complaint was monetary damages.

On January 20, 1995, defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to stay discovery. On February 16, 1995, the district court agreed to stay discovery in the case pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. On March 10, 1995, Turker filed an amended complaint in the district court, and, for the first time, specifically requested reinstatement to her position at ODRC and declaratory relief. J.A. at 82 (Amended Complaint).

On March 14, 1995, Turker filed a complaint against the defendants in the Ohio Court of Claims. It appears that sometime in August 1995, Turker voluntarily dismissed the state action. However, she refiled it on January 16, 1996. The second state complaint was virtually identical to the action pending in the district court.

As a result of the refiled state complaint, the defendants filed a second motion to dismiss in the district court on February 6, 1996. In that motion, the defendants argued that by filing an action against them in the Court of Claims, Turker waived her claims against the defendants in the federal action, and therefore, the federal case should be dismissed. The district court agreed and dismissed the federal action as to all defendants.

Turker then filed a timely appeal in this court, but voluntarily dismissed it on February 13, 1997. Henceforth proceeding pro se, Turker subsequently moved this court for reinstatement of the appeal, contending that her attorney dismissed her appeal without her approval. On April 25, 1997, this court granted Turker's motion to reinstate her appeal.

II.

Whether the district court correctly dismissed the suit pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is a question of law subject to de novo review. Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1251, 117 S.Ct. 2409, 138 L.Ed.2d 175 (1997). The court must construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept all the factual allegations as true, and determine whether the plaintiff can prove any set of facts in support of her claim that would entitle her to relief. Id.

In her federal lawsuit, Turker asserted claims for equitable and monetary relief against the ODRC and its employees in both their official and individual capacities. Our task is to determine whether the district court was correct in granting the defendants' motion to dismiss on the basis that Turker had waived her federal action by filing her complaint in the Ohio Court of Claims.

In 1975, the Ohio General Assembly enacted the Ohio Court of Claims Act, Ohio Rev.Code. § 2743.01-.72 ("O.C.C.A."), which governs Ohio's waiver of sovereign immunity and consent to be sued in the Ohio Court of Claims. The provision most pertinent to this appeal reads:

The state hereby waives its immunity from liability and consents to be sued, and have its liability determined, in the court of claims created in this chapter in accordance with the same rules of law applicable to suits between private parties, except that the determination of liability is subject to the limitations set forth in this chapter and, in the case of state universities or colleges, in section 3345.40 of the Revised Code, and except as provided in division (A)(2) of this section. To the extent that the state has previously consented to be sued, this chapter has no applicability.

Except in the case of a civil action filed by the state, filing a civil action in the court of claims results in a complete waiver of any cause of action, based on the same act or omission, which the filing party has against any officer or employee, as defined in section 109.36 of the Revised Code. The waiver shall be void if the court determines that the act or omission was manifestly outside the scope of the officer's or employee's office or employment or that the officer or employee acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.

Ohio Rev.Code. § 2743.02(A)(1).

The district court's disposal of Turker's claims for monetary damages was proper. It is well-established that a plaintiff cannot sue a state agency or any of its employees in their official capacities for monetary damages. See, e.g., Thiokol Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury, State of Mich., Revenue Div., 987 F.2d 376, 381 (6th Cir.1993) (citing Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100-01, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) and Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890)), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1271, 117 S.Ct. 2448, 138 L.Ed.2d 206 (1997). It is equally well-established that a federal court cannot entertain a lawsuit against state officials for violations of state law unless the state has waived its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. ¹ See, e.g., Freeman v. Michigan, Dep't of State, 808 F.2d 1174, 1179-80 (6th Cir.1987) (citing Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 106, 104 S.Ct. 900). Ohio has not waived that immunity. See Haynes v. Marshall, 887 F.2d 700, 705 (6th Cir.1989).

A plaintiff however, may sue state officials for monetary damages in their individual capacities under § 1983 without running afoul of the Eleventh Amendment. See Hafer v. Melo, ...