“matters of public record, orders, items appearing in the record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint” may be taken into account without converting a Rule 12(c) motion to a Rule 56 motion
How later courts described this case
- “matters of public record, orders, items appearing in the record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint” may be taken into account without converting a Rule 12(c) motion to a Rule 56 motion
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Glenda A Smith, et al.,
Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:18-cv-00462
v. Judge Michael R. Barrett
Hamilton County Juvenile Court, et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs—Smith and T.J., Smith’s daughter—bring eleven causes of action
against various Defendants who were purportedly involved in one of Smith’s state court
child custody case involving T.J. in the Hamilton County Juvenile Court (Doc. 40). The
matter is currently before the Court on Defendants’—Hamilton County Juvenile Court,
Hamilton County Job and Family Services, Hamilton County Child Support Enforcement
Agency, Hamilton County Board of Commissioners, Moira Weir, Nya Cruse, and Holly
Pelphrey—Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 50) and the briefing thereto
(Docs. 53, 59, 64).
In their supplemental memorandum, Defendants explain that Plaintiff Smith
abandoned her claims for reunification with Plaintiff T.J. in the underlying Hamilton County
Juvenile Court case (Doc. 64). Defendants attach a Judicial Entry from the Hamilton
County Juvenile Court case involving Plaintiff T.J., signed by a Hamilton County Juvenile
Court judge, which states that “[m]other is seeking no services leading to reunification at
this time and testified she agrees that the child’s best interests are served by staying in
her current placement until high school graduation.”1 (Doc. 64 at PageID 662).
Defendants argue that Plaintiff Smith’s abandonment of her claims in the Hamilton County
Juvenile Court case are dispositive of the claims in the Amended Complaint and this
matter is moot. (Id.). The Court agrees. Moreover, Plaintiffs did not respond to
Defendants’ supplemental memorandum and the time to do so has passed.2
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 50) is GRANTED. The remaining motions pending
before the Court (Docs. 30, 42, 55, 56, 65, 68, 73, 78, 82, 83) are DENIED as MOOT and
the Clerk of the Court is directed to TERMINATE this matter from the active docket of this
Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_s/ Michael R. Barrett________
Michael R. Barrett, Judge
United States District Court
1 See Barany-Snyder v. Weiner, 539 F.3d 327, 332 (6th Cir. 2008) (“matters of public record, orders, items
appearing in the record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint” may be taken into account
without converting a Rule 12(c) motion to a Rule 56 motion) (quoting Amini v. Oberlin Coll., 259 F.3d 493,
502 (6th Cir. 2001).
2 Although Plaintiff Smith represents herself and daughter in this matter, she is a licensed attorney and the
Court will not afford her the solicitude customarily granted to pro se litigants. Cf. Boyd v. United States,
932 F. Supp. 2d 830, 840 (S.D. Ohio 2013).