Evans v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Brunner
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- Dismissed at initial pleading stage; Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over constitutional claims
Related Laws
Outcome
Plaintiff's ADA and constitutional claims regarding prison transfers were dismissed as insufficient to state a claim and brought in the wrong forum (Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction over constitutional claims).
Excerpt
Where a prisoner's complaint consisted of allegations regarding the inconvenience and hardship caused by past and potential future transfers between prison institutions, the allegations were insufficient to allege a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, insufficient to show that the actions fell outside the scope of ODRC's general immunity from liability arising from decisions regarding inmate transfer and placement, and, insofar as the complaint sought to accuse ODRC of criminal acts or make constitutional claims, were brought in the first instance in the wrong forum, the Court of Claims.
Similar Rulings
Inmate Assault, Rape, Negligence, Damages, Stipulation. Defendant stipulated that its employees breached their duty of care towards plaintiff after eight inmates entered plaintiff's cell, then assaulted and raped plaintiff for approximately 90 minutes before staff intervention. A trial was held on the issue of damages. The magistrate found that the testimony of plaintiff's treating physician, who also served as defendant's medical expert, was credible in that plaintiff's hip injuries were consistent with normal wear and tear, not an acute injury from the attack. The magistrate further found that plaintiff had proven pain and suffering damages from the attack and recommended an award of $175,000.00 in compensatory damages.
The Court of Claims of Ohio did not err in granting appellee's Civ.R. 12(B)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The collective bargaining agreement between the parties provides for final and binding arbitration, and all three of appellant's claims relate to employment matters covered by the collective bargaining agreement. Thus, pursuant to R.C. 4117.10(A), arbitration was appellant's exclusive remedy, and the Court of Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear her claims. Judgment affirmed.
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.