FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 16CV190346
FRANCIS, pro se, Appellant.
P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and GERALD A. INNES, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
A. SCHAFER JUSTICE.
Plaintiff-Appellant, Jeremy Francis, appeals the judgment of
the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas granting
Defendant-Appellee, the Lorain County Prosecutor's
Office's, motion to dismiss. We affirm.
On August 25, 2016, Mr. Francis filed a complaint pro se
against the Lorain County Prosecutor's Office
("Lorain County") in the Lorain County Court of
Common Pleas. Mr. Francis' complaint prays "for the
court and grand jury for charges to be filed against the
Prosecutors office for Legal Malpractice according to: Giving
a ruling against state law, Disregarding court procedure,
With holding court information, Defamation of
character." (sic.) Mr. Francis' complaint alleges
that Lorain County committed malpractice, fraud, and
defamation during the pendency of his criminal case in 2003.
Mr. Francis' complaint also seeks $1, 140, 000.00 in
In response to Mr. Francis' complaint, Lorain County
filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction on the basis that Mr. Francis'
various claims were time-barred pursuant to the statute of
limitations contained in R.C. 2305.11. Mr. Francis filed a
reply brief in response to Lorain County's motion to
dismiss, wherein he argues that even if the statute of
limitations is applicable in this matter, Lorain County must
still be held accountable for their purported actions. On
October 25, 2016, the trial court granted Lorain County's
motion after concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to
consider Mr. Francis' complaint because the causes of
action pleaded therein were time-barred by the statutes of
limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.11 and R.C. 2305.09,
Mr. Francis filed this timely appeal and presents one
assignment of error for our review.
Ruling did not consider that the docket sheet and
record were the primary argument and evidence of the
complaint and were not disclosed upon.
The substance of Mr. Francis' sole assignment of error is
unclear, but he appears to argue that the trial court erred
by granting Lorain County's motion to dismiss without
addressing the merits of the allegations set forth in his
complaint. Moreover, Mr. Francis seemingly claims that the
trial court erred by concluding that his claims are
time-barred by the applicable statutes of limitation because
"[t]ime limits are waived where there is * * * proof of
Initially, we note that Lorain County filed a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1), arguing that the trial
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Mr.
Francis' claims. However, in asserting that the trial
court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter, Lorain
County argued that Mr. Francis' malpractice and
defamation claims were barred by the one-year statute of
limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.11. Thus, the substance of
Lorain County's motion is more akin to a Civ.R. 12(B)(6)
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. See Ohio Bur. Of Workers'
Comp. v. McKinley,130 Ohio St.3d 156, 2011-Ohio-4432,
¶ 13 ("A complaint may be dismissed under Civ.R.
12(B)(6) for failing to comply with the applicable statute of
limitations when the complaint on its face conclusively
indicates that the action is time-barred"), citing
Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 109 Ohio St.3d
491, 2006-Ohio-2625, ¶ 11. Indeed, the trial court
implicitly treated Lorain County's motion to dismiss as a