Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case
APPELLANT Karen Clinton, pro se.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor By: Charles E. Hannan Assistant County
Prosecutor Justice Center.
BEFORE: Laster Mays, J., Boyle, P.J., and Celebrezze, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
LASTER MAYS, JUDGE.
Defendant-appellant, Karen Clinton ("Clinton"),
appeals the trial court's denial of her motion for relief
from judgment. We affirm.
Clinton assigns eight assignments of error for our review;
however, only the first assignment of error concerns the
trial court's denial of her motion. The remaining seven
are not related to the trial court's denial of
Clinton's motion, but rather concern prior decisions this
court has rendered on Clinton's prior cases including
Clinton v. MetroHealth Sys., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
86886, 2006-Ohio-3582 ("Clinton I ") and
State ex rel. Clinton v. MetroHealth Sys., 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 100590, 2014-Ohio-4469 ("Clinton
II "). The Ohio Supreme Court refused to
reconsider its decision not to take jurisdiction of
Clinton's appeal. This court denied reconsideration in
As a result of the denials, Clinton has filed this appeal.
She states, "since the Ohio Supreme Court refused to
hear the merits of my appeal, this motion was the only
alternative procedural device to bring the errors back before
this court to correct its prior erroneous decision in
Clinton I and II." We will only
consider and review the first assignment of error because the
other seven are merely Clinton's way of attempting to get
this court to review our decisions in past cases we have
already previously declined to reconsider.
I. The trial court erred when it denied Relator's 60(B)
motion for relief from judgment by relying upon this Court of
Appeals judgment issued on 10-8-14 in Cuyahoga C.P. No.
CA-13-100590 that had adjudicating the various errors of law
and fact raised in the 60(B) notion which highlighted this
Court of Appeals erroneous conclusions of law and fact.
Furthermore, the trial court erred in granting summary
judgment to MetroHealth System in the first place, when
evidence showed that MetroHealth wrongfully delayed
production of, withheld, and destroyed public records. And
finally this Court of Appeals further erred in permitting the
trial court to grant summary judgment for the various record
requests to MetroHealth System as too many questions of fact
existed to determine the case by that method as we stated in
our own motion for partial summary judgment filed in the 2014
appeal to this court.
Relief from Judgment
"This court reviews the trial court's decision
granting or denying a motion for relief from judgment for an
abuse of discretion. Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d
172, 174, 637 N.E.2d 914 (1994)." Morana v.
Foley, 2015-Ohio-5254, 54 N.E.3d 749, ¶ 5 (8th
Dist). "An abuse of discretion is connoted by a decision
that is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable."
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450
N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
Law and Analysis
In Clinton's first assignment of error she argues that
the trial court erred when it relied on our decision in