Dante' D. Gordon, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Defendant-Appellee.
from the Court of Claims of Ohio No. 2017-00369
brief: Dante' D. Gordon, pro se.
brief: Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Stacy Hannan,
1} Plaintiff-appellant, Dante' D. Gordon,
appeals the decision of the Court of Claims of Ohio to
dismiss his complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and
12(B)(6). For the following reasons, we affirm the decision
of the trial court.
2} Gordon is an inmate in the custody and control of
the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
("ODRC"). Gordon alleges claims of inappropriate
supervision in violation of the Ohio Administrative Code,
discrimination, racial issues, harassment, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
3} Gordon filed his original complaint on April 21,
2017. On May 19, 2017, ODRC filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint pursuant Civ.R. 12(B)(1) for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction and Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. On June 12, 2017,
Gordon filed a first amended complaint without leave of the
court. ODRC filed a motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint on June 21, 2017.
4} After an extension was granted to Gordon to file
a response to ODRC's second motion to dismiss, Gordon
filed a second amended complaint on July 20, 2017. On August
3, 2017, ODRC filed a motion to strike Gordon's second
5} The Court of Claims in its October 12, 2017
decision denied ODRC's May 19, 2017 motion as moot,
granted ODRC's motion to strike Gordon's July 20,
2017 second amended complaint for failure to comply with
Civ.R. 15(A), and the first amended complaint was dismissed
pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(6).
6} On November 8, 2017, Gordon's notice of
appeal was timely filed.
7} Gordon lists two assignments of error:
[I.] The Trial court abused its discretion when it refused to
allow the Appellant to amend his complaint pursuant to Civil
Rule 15(A), Civil Rule (1) and without a material showing to
support the corut's decision. Thus violating the
Appellant's rights under O.Const.1 Sec.2 Equal protection
& Benefit, O.Const.1 Sec. 16 Redress for injury; due
process and the 14thamendment to the U.S. Const.
to due process & equal protection of the laws.
[II.] JUDGE Mcgrath errored in abusing his discretion by
dismissing Appellant's complaint pursuant to
Civ.R.12(B)(1) & Civ.R.12(B)(6) where prison officials
admitted to violations of law & where the Appellant not
only provided a set of facts, but evidence to which the
appellant could recover. Thus violating the Appellant's
rights under O.Const. 1 Sec. 2 equal protection &
benefit, O.Cont.1 Sec.16 redress for injury, due ...