 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Baker v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction8/1/2001
This is an appeal from the Pickaway County Court of Common Pleas, which granted Defendants-Appellees' Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff-Appellant Dale Baker for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in granting appellees' Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion and dismissing appellant's complaint. We find appellant's argument as it pertains to his Eighth Amendment and retaliation claims to be well taken. However, we find this argument to be without merit as it pertains to the disability discrimination claim.
Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in not entering default judgment in appellant's favor because appellees failed to answer appellant's amended complaint. We find this argument to be without merit.
Further, appellant argues that this Court should find the trial judge to be biased, thus assigning a new judge on remand. We find this argument to also be without merit.
Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
This appeal concerns a pro se complaint and amended complaint filed by Plaintiff-Appellant Dale Baker, an inmate in the Orient Correctional Institution (OCI).
At the outset, we note that appellant's complaint and amended complaint allude to a wide range of possible claims; his arguments span tort law, the Ohio Revised Code, and federal constitutional law. Nevertheless, appellant expressly states in his brief to this Court that, "because this controversy was filed under [Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.Code,] for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law, federal law and not state law should govern this proceeding." Accordingly, we adopt the same approach taken by the trial court in this matter: we construe appellant's complaint and amended complaint as involving federal claims. See, generally, State ex rel. Karmasu v. Tate (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 199, 206, 614 N.E.2d 827, 832 (holding that "considerable leniency must be afforded to pro se actions brought by prisoners"); see, also, In Re Election Contest of Democratic Primary Election (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 118, 717 N.E.2d 701 (explaining that "Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions * merely ascertain whether the complaint alleges the elements of the claim with sufficient particularity so that reasonable notice is given to the opposing parties, i.e., Ohio generally follows notice, rather than fact, pleading"); accord State ex rel. Williams Ford Sales, Inc. v. Connor (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 111, 647 N.E.2d 804.
I.
On April 11, 2000, appellant filed a complaint in the Pickaway County Court of Common Pleas against Defendant-Appellee Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) and Defendant-Appellee Dr. Oppong, a physician with Frazier Heath Center (FHC), a skilled-nursing facility affiliated with the prison. Appellant's complaint requested a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief for the violation of certain of his federal constitutional rights. Essentially, appellant asserted two federal constitutional violations in his complaint: (1) denial of proper medical care, a violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment; and (2) retaliation, a violation of his First Amendment right to file complaints and grievances. To support these charges, appellant presented the following factual allegations in his complaint.
Appellant suffers from Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT disease). To lessen the effects of CMT disease on appellant's feet, Appellee Oppong provided appellant with orthopedic shoes. Despite wearing these orthop
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|