“The Parole Authority is undisputedly a state agency.”
How later courts described this case
- “The Parole Authority is undisputedly a state agency.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMARR R. STONE, SR.,
Case No. 2:21-cv-884
Plaintiff,
v. Judge James L. Graham
OHIO PAROLE BOARD, et al., Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the April 1, 2021, Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Jolson. (ECF No. 9.) Magistrate Judge Jolson conducted
an initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-2) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and also
addressed Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF
No. 2) and his Motion Requesting Summons of Complaint (ECF No. 8).
After preforming an initial screen, Magistrate Judge Jolson recommended that Plaintiff be
permitted to proceed with his claims against Defendants Chambers-Smith, Eppinger, Franklin,
Jennings and Cimmento, but ordered Plaintiff to file an amended Complaint, within twenty-one
(21) days of the date of her Report and Recommendation, that more specifically sets forth factual
allegations supporting his claims against these Defendants. Magistrate Judge Jolson further
recommended that the following Defendants: Ohio Parole Board (the “OPB”) and OPB Members
Kathleen Kovach, Mark Houk, Joe Brumfield, Lance Pressley, Tracey Reveal, Glen Holmes,
Jennifer Clemans, Lisa Hoying, Scott Widner, Steve Herron, Tracey Thalheimer, and Alicia
Handwerk (the “Defendant Members”) be dismissed, and that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 2) and his Motion Requesting Summons
of Complaint (ECF No. 8) both be denied.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No.
17) and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Jolson (ECF No.
9).
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
On May 26, 2021, Plaintiff timely filed his objections to Magistrate Judge Jolson’s Report
and Recommendation.
If a party objects within the allotted time to a report and recommendation, the Court “shall
make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). As required by 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court will make a de novo review of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which Plaintiff specifically objects.
II. PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff, proceeding without the assistance of counsel, objected to the Report and
Recommendation arguing that: 1) Magistrate Judge Jolson mistakenly held that Plaintiff intended
to bring claims against the OPB as a state entity and 2) that he was permitted to bring claims
against the Defendant Members in their individual capacities.
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s objections are noted, but he overlooks the fact that his objections were filed well
after his April 15, 2021 Amended Complaint, which omitted the OPB and the Defendant Members
as defendants in this action. Consequently, the OPB and the Defendant Members were terminated
as defendants on April 15, 2021. Plaintiff’s objections are therefore moot, and consequently, the
Court overrules them.
Even so, to the extent Plaintiff sought to sue the OPB,1 “[t]he Ohio Parole Board is a section
within the Ohio Parole Authority, a state agency.” See Latham v. Bd., No. 1:15-CV-488, 2015
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137207, 2015 WL 5905833, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 16, 2015), report and
recommendation adopted sub nom. Latham v. Ohio Parole Bd., No. 1: 15-CV-488, 2015 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 137128, 2015 WL 5882979 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 7, 2015) (citing Ohio Rev. Code § 5149.02;
Holson v. Good, 579 F. App’x 366 (6th Cir. 2014) (“The Parole Authority is undisputedly a state
agency.”) “Absent an express waiver, the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
bars suit against a State or one of its agencies or departments in federal court regardless of the
nature of the relief sought.” Id. (citing Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 58
(1996)); Pennhurst State School v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Alabama v. Pugh, 438
U.S. 781, 782 (1978); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663 (1974)). Furthermore, “Ohio has not
waived its sovereign immunity in federal court.” Mixon v. State of Ohio, 193 F.3d 389, 397 (6th
Cir. 1999). Thus, Magistrate Judge Jolson’s recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against
the OPB pursuant to § 1915(e) was appropriate.
Moreover, though Plaintiff correctly points out that he sued the Defendant Members in
their individual capacities, Magistrate Judge Jolson determined that the Defendant Members were
1 In his objections, Plaintiff directs this Court’s attention to his Ohio Court of Claims suit against the OPB, Jamarr R.
Stone, Sr. v. Ohio Parole Board, Case No. 2021-00134AD, where on March 15, 2021, he filed a complaint nearly
identical to the original Complaint filed in this case alleging the same deprivation of rights by the OPB and its twelve
members. Under Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(A)(1), “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, that the filing party has against any officer or
employee.” This waiver extends to federal causes of action. Leaman v. Ohio Dep’t of Mental Retardation & Dev.
Disabilities, 825 F.2d 946, 952 (6th Cir. 1987) (en banc).
immune from liability under the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity. (ECF No. 9 at 843 discussing
Morrow v. Igleburger, 67 F.R.D. 675, 683–84 (S.D. Ohio 1974).) The doctrine of quasi-judicial
immunity is a personal immunity to which government officials “might be entitled if sued in their
individual or personal capacities.” Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 811 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 (1985)). Therefore, Magistrate Judge Jolson correctly
determined that the Defendant Members are also immune from suit, whether sued in their
individual or official capacities.2
IV. CONCLUSION
Upon de novo review, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 17) and
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9). Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 2) and his Motion Requesting
Summons of Complaint (ECF No. 8) are both DENIED.
On October 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Status Review (ECF No. 30) asking the
Court to rule on Magistrate Judge Jolson’s Report and Recommendation. Having done so now,
the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Status Review as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ James L. Graham
JAMES L. GRAHAM
United States District Judge
DATE: November 2, 2021
2 The Eleventh Amendment provides immunity for states, arms of the state, and state employees in their official
capacities from suits for money damages. Rodgers v. Banks, 344 F.3d 587, 594 (6th Cir. 2003).