Phelps v. Office of the Attorney General

Ohio Appellate Reports

Unpublished

PHELPS v. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Unpublished Decision (1-4-2007) 2007-Ohio-14 Alvin and Rosemary Phelps, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Office of the Attorney General, Defendant-Appellee. No. 06AP-751. Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District. Rendered on January 4, 2007.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio.

Alvin and Rosemary Phelps, pro se.

Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Amy S. Brown, for
appellee.

OPINION

KLATT, J.

{¶ 1} Plaintiffs-appellants, Alvin and Rosemary
Phelps, appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims of
Ohio granting defendant-appellee, Ohio Attorney General’s,
motion to dismiss appellants’ complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to
Civ.R. 12(B)(6). For the following reasons, we affirm.

{¶ 2} On February 15, 2006, appellants, acting pro
se, filed an amended complaint in the Court of Claims
naming the State of Ohio/Office of the Attorney General,
Seventh District Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Ohio,
and a number of individual elected officials and judges,
including the Governor and the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court of Ohio. Following that filing, the trial court, in a
“pre-screening entry,” dismissed all the defendants except
appellee (as representative of the State of Ohio entities)
based upon R.C. 2743.02(E), which provides that only state
agencies and instrumentalities of the state can be
defendants in original actions in the Court of Claims. This
entry is not the subject of this appeal. Thereafter,
appellee filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R.
12(B)(6) based upon appellants’ failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. The trial court granted
the motion by entry of dismissal dated August 6, 2006,
stating:

In the motion to dismiss, defendant argues that
plaintiffs’ complaint is “nearly indecipherable.” The
court agrees. Indeed, upon review of plaintiffs’ complaint
and the documents attached thereto, the court is unable to
discern a single cognizable claim for relief. The
complaint also contains numerous cryptic references to
various attachments and exhibits that provide no guidance
as to the claim(s) plaintiffs attempt to assert.

{¶ 3} Appellants appeal assigning the following
errors:

[1.] IS PHELPS COMPLAINT “INDECIPHERABLE”; CLAIMS ARE NOT INCOGNIZABLE AS TO WHAT RELIEF IS TO BE HAD, BUT ARE CLEAR AS TO ANYONE WITH A “REASONABLE MIND” ACCORDING TO SUBSTANTIVE LAWS AND OHIO JURISPRUDENCE OF THE STATE OF OHIO.

[2] COURT OF CLAIMS ERRORED AS TO THE DEFENSE ON IMMUNITY IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND AN ACTION [IS] A DENIAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS IS NOT TO BE DISMISSED AT THE PLEADING STAGE.

[3] COURT OF CLAIMS ERRORED [SIC] AS TO PHELPS CAUSE OF ACTION IN COMPLAINT.

[4] ERROR OF COURT OF CLAIMS INABILTY TO DECIPHER FROM THE COMPLAINT PHELPS STATUTORY RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS TO 3929.06 WHEN COURTS ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION.

[5] THE COURT OF CLAIMS ERRORED [SIC] AND IGNORED THE RULES OF COURT, O.R.C. AND OHIO JURISPRUDENCE AND SUBSTANTIVE CASELAW WRITTEN AS TO WORD IN PHELPS’ COMPLAINT WHICH THE COURT STATED WAS INDECIPHERABLE.

[6] COURT OF CLAIMS FAILED TO DECIPHER THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO DID NOT COMPLY AS TO THEIR OWN RULINGS.

[7] COURT OF CLAIMS INABILITY TO DECIPHER FROM THE PHELPS COMPLAINT THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS ADMINISTRATOR [OF] THE DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL.

[8] AS THE COURT OF CLAIMS STATED THAT THEY COULD NOT DECIPHER FROM THE PHELPS COMPLAINT THAT THE PHELPS WERE DEPRIVED OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS THE COURTS NOT FOLLOWING THE LAWS AND THAT THE COURTS ARE TO PROTECT THOSE WHO COME BEFORE THEM THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS.

{¶ 4} Civ.R. 12(B)(6) authorizes a defendant to
assert by motion that the plaintiff failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. A motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
tests the sufficiency of the complaint. State ex rel.
Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1992), 65 Ohio
St.3d 545, 548. Therefore, a trial court must limit its
consideration to the four corners of the complaint when
deciding a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss. Singleton v.
Adjutant General of Ohio, Franklin App. No. 02AP-971,
2003-Ohio-1838, at ¶ 18. In addition, a court must
presume that all factual allegations in the complaint are
true and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor
of the nonmoving party. Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co. (1988),
40 Ohio St.3d 190, 192; Ritchie v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.,
Franklin App. No. 05AP-1019, 2006-Ohio-1210, at ¶
16. However, “unsupported conclusions of a complaint are
not considered admitted and are not sufficient to withstand
a motion to dismiss.” State ex rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson
(1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 489, 490. Appellate review of motions
to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Civ.R.
12(B)(6) is de novo. Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio
St.3d 79, 2004-Ohio-4362, at ¶ 5; Ritchie, at
¶ 16.

{¶ 5} Appellants’ assignments of error are
interrelated and, therefore, we will address them
collectively. In essence, appellants contend that the trial
court erred in finding their complaint “indecipherable” and
that they have, in fact, stated causes of action for the
denial of their civil rights, statutory rights, and
constitutional rights. Therefore, we must determine on de
novo review, whether appellants’ amended complaint states a
claim against appellee.

{¶ 6} Appellants’ amended complaint consists of
approximately 177 paragraphs covering over 80 pages.
Attached to the amended complaint are a number of other
lengthy documents, most of which are pleadings from other
legal actions. A large portion of the amended complaint
consists of various statements of the law and citations to
legal authorities. At the beginning of the amended
complaint, appellants allege that they are asserting six
claims:

[1.] ACTING IN BAD FAITH;

[2.] 1983, 1985, 1986 ACTION AS TO CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT LEGAL FRAUD, DENIAL OF FAIR TRIAL, CONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATION, 7 & 14 AMENDMENTS, DENIAL OF STATE STATUTES AND LAWS, ABUSE OF POWER WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD, MALICIOUS AND ABUSIVE DISREGARD AND INTENT TO CAUSE HARM ACTING WITHOUT JURISDICTION;

[3] NEGLIGENCE IN OFFICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES;

[4] ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND POWER, WITH GROSS NEGLIGENCE AS TO THE SUPREME COURT, SEVENTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, COLUMBIANA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, TREATING PHELPS WITH INDIFFERENT TREATMENT AND ACTING WITHOUT JURISDICTION;

[5.] CIVIL R.I.CO.

[6] BREACH OF IMPLIED/ORAL CONTRACT.

{¶ 7} Despite the length of appellants’ amended
complaint, their identification of a number of legal
claims, and their detailed recitation of several different
legal proceedings, the factual basis for appellants’
purported claims against appellee is largely
indecipherable. Although it is apparent that appellants are
unhappy with the legal ruling in various legal proceedings
in which they were parties, we are unable to discern the
factual basis for the claims they purport to assert here.
Civ.R. 8(A) provides “[a] pleading that sets forth a claim
for relief * * * shall contain (1) a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the party is entitled
to relief.” As noted above, unsupported conclusions of a
complaint are not sufficient to withstand a motion to
dismiss. Seikbert, at 490. Appellants’ appellate brief is
not any more enlightening. Therefore, we agree with the
trial court that appellants have failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.

{¶ 8} We recognize that appellants are acting pro
se. Nevertheless, a pro se litigant “`is held to the same
rules, procedures and standards as those litigants
represented by counsel and must accept the results of her
own mistakes and errors.'” Dailey v. R & J Commercial
Contracting, Franklin App. No. 01AP-1464, 2002-Ohio-4724, at
¶ 17, quoting Dombirier v. Paul (Aug. 19, 1997),
Franklin App. No. 96APE11-1560, discretionary appeal not
allowed, 80 Ohio St.3d 1476. We simply cannot discern a
cognizable claim against appellee in appellants’ rambling,
largely indecipherable allegations.

{¶ 9} Moreover, to the extent that appellants
attempt to assert claims against various states courts,
appellants’ allegations clearly challenge judicial acts
conducted in the context of legal proceedings. Ohio judges
have absolute immunity for actions taken within their
official discretion. Elliott v. Ohio Dept. of Ins. (1993),
88 Ohio App.3d 1, 8, citing Willitzer v. McCloud (1983), 6
Ohio St.3d 447, 449. Additionally, judicial immunity
extends not only to judges but also to courts and the state
itself. Kafele v. State of Ohio (Sept. 21, 2004), Franklin
App. No. 03AP-838. Therefore, even if we were able to
decipher the factual basis for appellants’ claims, the
amended complaint contains allegations that clearly invoke
the doctrine of judicial immunity.

{¶ 10} For the foregoing reasons, we overrule
appellants’ eight assignments of error, and we affirm the
judgment of the Court of Claims.

Judgment affirmed.

FRENCH and McGRATH, JJ., concur.