Worrall v. Irwin, 94-3859
| Decision Date | 26 September 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-3859,94-3859 |
| Citation | 67 F.3d 300 |
| Parties | NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Robert P. WORRALL, Guardian for and on behalf of Helen Worrall, Plaintiff-Appellee, Counter-Defendant, v. James E. IRWIN, Defendant-Appellant, Third-Party Plaintiff, Counter-Claimant, First National Bank of Ohio; Dennis G. Walsh; H. Vincent Walsh; Dennis L. Wittman; Gregory Scott Beane; Barbara K. Eshbaugh; IDS Financial Services, Inc., Third-Party Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Before: WELLFORD, NELSON and RYAN, Circuit Judges.
James E. Irwin, pro se, appeals a district court order and judgment granting the counter-defendant's and third-party defendants' motions for summary judgment in this complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, under Ohio common law conversion, and under Ohio probate law. Jurisdiction for the state law claims is based on diversity of citizenship. The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).
The plaintiff, Robert Worrall, as Guardian for and on behalf of Helen Worrall (hereinafter referred to as "Helen"), originally filed this action against James Irwin, the counter-claimant in this appeal. The Guardian sought relief in the form of compensatory damages and expenses totalling over $50,000 that the Guardian allegedly suffered in defending certain law suits brought by Irwin in Ohio that the Guardian claimed were "frivolous petitions." Upon removal of the case to district court, Irwin raised federal and state claims, to which the counter-defendant and third-party defendants replied with motions for summary judgment.
The district court first determined that Irwin had failed to establish that the third-party defendants or the Guardian had acted under color of state law. Moreover, the court determined that the evidence was insufficient to establish that a conspiracy existed to deprive Irwin of his property without due process of law. The court next determined that it was required to abstain from considering Irwin's conversion claims in light of the probate proceedings currently pending in the Ohio courts. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The claims against IDS were dismissed on the basis that IDS acted in reliance on a facially valid order from the Ohio probate court. Lastly, the court decided that the Guardian had failed to show why his complaint should not be dismissed based on the doctrine announced in Younger, and based on the Guardian's withdrawal of his claims to the extent that they depended upon allegations that Irwin's petitions were frivolous. Thus, the case was resolved as follows: 1) the Guardian's motion for summary judgment on Irwin's amended counter-claim and third-pa...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Jones v. Montgomery
-
" v. Eastern State Hosp.
...declaratory and injunctive relief from guardianship order issued by Ohio juvenile court); Worrall v. Irvin, 67 F.3d 300 (Table), 1995 WL 569682, at *1-*2 (6th Cir. September 26, 1995) (affirming Worrall v. Irwin, 890 F. Supp. 696, 705-706 (S. D. Ohio 1994), holding that under Younger and it......