APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio. Ct. of Cl. No. 2012-06378
Stephen Holman, pro se.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Kristin S. Boggs, for appellee.
(¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Stephen Holman, appeals from the judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio granting the motion to dismiss filed by defendant-appellee, the Department of Commerce. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
(¶ 2} Appellant filed this action on August 22, 2012. According to his complaint, on or about July 2 and 27, 2009, Leigh Willis, Deputy Superintendent of Consumer Finance, Division of Financial Institutions, knowingly with malicious intent altered, destroyed, concealed, and removed documents to impair their availability as evidence in appellant's related court proceedings. Specifically, the complaint alleged Willis falsified dates to make it appear as if appellant was working at the time of alleged crimes when he actually was not. Because of Willis's alleged actions, appellant's complaint seeks damages for his mental anguish and present incarceration.
(¶ 3} Appellee filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and (B)(1), asserting that appellant's claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and appellant failed to articulate any claims against the state over which the Court of Claims would have jurisdiction. In response, appellant argued his claims were not time-barred because the discovery rule applied to extend the statute of limitations.
(¶ 4} The trial court concluded that, to the extent appellant was raising claims asserting a violation of his civil rights, the court was without subject-matter jurisdiction to hear such claims. The trial court also concluded that appellant's claims accrued, at the latest, on July 27, 2009; therefore, his August 22, 2012 complaint was untimely. Consequently, the trial court granted appellee's motion to dismiss.
II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
(¶ 5} This appeal followed, and appellant brings the following two assignments of error for our review:
[I.] The court erred in its premature decision and the plaintiff was prejudice. When the court fail to acknowledge the plaintiffs state law claims in this court.
[II.] The court abused its discretion and the plaintiff was prejudice. When the court denied the plaintiffs claims that he preserves his rights to be heard in the court of common pleas/federal ...