McCain v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

[Cite as McCain v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2020-Ohio-3946.]

EDDIE W. MCCAIN Case No. 2019-00828JD

Plaintiff Judge Patrick McGrath

Magistrate Gary Peterson

v.

ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE

REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION PLEADINGS

Defendant

{¶1} On April 22, 2020, defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings

pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C). On June 3, 2020, plaintiff filed a response. On June 10,

2020, defendant filed a reply. For the reasons discussed below, defendant’s motion

shall be granted.

Standard of Review

Civ.R. 12(C) may be employed by a defendant as a vehicle for raising the

several defenses contained in Civ.R. 12(B) after the close of the

pleadings. * * * Pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C), the pleadings must be construed

liberally and in a light most favorable to the party against whom the motion

is made along with the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. * * * A

Civ.R. 12(C) motion presents only questions of law, and it may be granted

only when no material factual issues exist, and the movant is entitled to a

judgment as a matter of law.

Burnside v. Leimbach, 71 Ohio App.3d 399, 402-403, (10th Dist.1991). To dismiss a

complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to

Civ.R. 12(B)(6), it must appear beyond doubt from the complaint that plaintiff can prove

no set of facts entitling her to recovery. O’Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union,

Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975), syllabus. Dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to

file the action within the applicable statute of limitations is proper only when the face of

Case No. 2019-00828JD -2- ENTRY

the complaint conclusively shows that the action is time barred. Leichliter v. Natl. City

Bank, 134 Ohio App.3d 26 (10th Dist.1999).

Factual and Procedural Background

{¶2} According to the amended complaint,1 on June 24, 2017, one or more of

defendant’s agents wrote a conduct report falsely accusing plaintiff of stabbing another

inmate. (Amended Complaint, p. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that the false conduct report

caused the Adult Parole Authority (APA) to deny him parole. Id., at p. 2. Plaintiff avers

that, because of the allegations in the false conduct report, his next parole hearing will

not be held for seven years. Id. Plaintiff attached several exhibits to his amended

complaint wherein several individuals attest in affidavits that plaintiff did not stab

another inmate. Plaintiff requests $25,000.00 in damages. Id.

{¶3} Defendant previously moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for lack of

subject-matter jurisdiction. The court agreed, in part, and on April 13, 2020, dismissed

plaintiff’s constitutional claims, claims challenging the decision of the APA, and claims

appealing the decision by the Rules Infraction Board. The motion to dismiss was

denied, in part, because the court also determined that plaintiff arguably raised a claim

for defamation. Thereafter, on April 22, 2020, defendant filed an answer and a motion

for judgment on the pleadings. On June 3, 2020, plaintiff filed his response with

corresponding exhibits and attachments. However, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C), the court,

“may only consider the statements contained in the pleadings and may not consider any

evidentiary materials.” Workman v. Franklin County, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 00AP-1449,

2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 3818, 6 (Aug. 28, 2001) quoting Moore v. Rickenbacker, 10th

Dist. Franklin No. 00AP-1259, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 1973, 3 (May 3, 2001).

1Plaintiff filed his original complaint on July 25, 2019, and his amended complaint on August 19,

2019. It is well-settled that, “[a]n amended complaint supplants the original complaint, so the allegations

in an amended complaint supersede those in the original complaint.” DSS Servs., LLC v. Eitel’s Towing,

LLC, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 18AP-567, 2019-Ohio-3158, ¶ 6. Accordingly, the court will only consider

plaintiff’s August 19, 2019 amended complaint.

Case No. 2019-00828JD -3- ENTRY

Consequently, the court cannot consider the attachments and exhibits filed with

plaintiff’s response.

{¶4} As an initial matter, plaintiff argues that defendant’s motion for judgment on

the pleadings is improperly before the court because the certificate of service indicates

that the motion was served one day prior to defendant’s answer. Indeed, defendant’s

certificate of service indicates that the motion for judgment on the pleadings was served

on April 23, 2020, one day prior to service of defendant’s answer.2 Nevertheless, both

the motion for judgment on the pleadings and the answer were simultaneously filed with

the court on April 22, 2020. Accordingly, defendant properly filed both an answer and a

motion for judgment on the pleadings.

{¶5} Even if defendant filed a premature motion for judgment on the pleadings,

the standard of review for both a Civ.R 12(B)(6) motion and a Civ.R.12(C) motion is the

same. Wilkins v. Harrisburg, 10th Dist. Franklin No.12AP-1046, 2013-Ohio-2751, ¶ 7.

Accordingly, plaintiff is not prejudiced by consideration of a premature Civ.R. 12(C)

motion if dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) is otherwise appropriate. Id.

Law and Analysis

{¶6} In its motion for judgment on the pleadings, defendant argues that plaintiff’s

claim for defamation is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. R.C. 2743.16(A)

provides, in relevant part, that “civil actions against the state * * * shall be commenced

no later than two years after the date of the accrual of the cause of action or within any

shorter period that is applicable to similar suits between private parties.” (Emphasis

added.) Additionally, R.C. 2305.11(A) provides, “[a]n action for libel, slander, malicious

prosecution, or false imprisonment * * * shall be commenced within one year after the

cause of action accrued * * *.” “Ohio has held that the statute of limitations for

2The certificate of service accompanying defendant’s answer indicates that it was served upon

plaintiff on April 24, 2020.

Case No. 2019-00828JD -4- ENTRY

defamation, be it libel or slander, begins to run at the time words are written or spoken,

not when the plaintiff became aware of them.” Singh v. ABA Publ. ABA, 10th Dist.

Franklin No. 02AP-1125, 2003-Ohio-2314, ¶ 22.

{¶7} Accepting the allegations of the amended complaint as true, plaintiff’s claim

accrued no later than June 24, 2017, the date upon which defendant’s agents authored

the false conduct report. Plaintiff filed his original complaint on July 25, 2019, more than

one year after his claim accrued. In his response, plaintiff argues that his injury

occurred at his parole hearing in 2019, thus making his defamation claim timely.

However, as previously stated, the statute of limitations for defamation begins to run at

the time the words are written or spoken, not when the plaintiff became aware of them

or suffered injury. Singh at ¶ 22-23. Furthermore, Ohio courts have declined to apply

the discovery rule to actions for defamation. Id. Accordingly, plaintiff’s defamation

claim is barred by the one-year statute of limitations.

Conclusion

{¶8} Making all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, the amended complaint

conclusively shows that his claim for defamation is barred by the one-year statute of

limitations. Therefore, defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED

and judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. All previously scheduled events are

VACATED. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all

parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.

PATRICK M. MCGRATH

Judge

Filed June 24, 2020

Sent to S.C. Reporter 8/4/20