from the Court of Claims of Ohio Ct. of Cl. No. 2017-00557
McDougald, pro se.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Frank S. Carson, for
1} This is an appeal by plaintiff-appellant, Jerone
McDougald, from a judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio
granting the motion to dismiss filed by defendant-appellee,
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
2} On June 22, 2017, appellant filed a pro se
complaint against ODRC asserting "ministerial
neglect." The complaint alleged that on June 15, 2017,
appellant, an inmate, was escorted to a consultation room by
a correction officer to speak with a mental health physician
via satellite. According to the complaint, despite
appellant's request for confidentiality of his medical
information, the correction officer was present in the
"mental health consultation room" during
appellant's discussion with the physician. The complaint
sought damages in the amount of $100, 000.
3} On January 21, 2017, ODRC filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and for failure to state a claim for
relief under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Appellant did not file a
response to ODRC's motion to dismiss. By entry filed
October 2, 2017, the Court of Claims granted ODRC's
motion to dismiss the complaint.
4} On appeal, appellant sets forth the following two
assignments of error for this court's review:
[I.] The trial court erred by converting plaintiff[']s
claims into constitutional claims when he clearly stated a
state tort claim for invasion of privacy claim.
[II.] The trial court erred by converting plaintiff[']s
invasion of privacy claim into a discretionary act when it
was a ministerial dutie [sic] for officers to respect patient
5} Appellant has filed a pro se brief challenging
the decision of the Court of Claims granting ODRC's
motion to dismiss his complaint. Under his first assignment
of error, appellant contends the Court of Claims erred in
converting his claim for invasion of privacy into a
6} An appeal of a trial court's dismissal of a
complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under
Civ.R. 12(B)(1) is reviewed de novo. Pulizzi v.
Sandusky, 6th Dist. No. E-03-002, 2003-Ohio-5853, ¶
5. In considering such an appeal, "the principle inquiry
is 'whether the plaintiff has alleged any cause of action
which the court has authority to decide.' "
Id., quoting McHenry v. Indus. Comm. of
Ohio, 68 Ohio App.3d 56, 62 (4th Dist.1990).
7} In order for a trial court to dismiss a complaint
under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, "it must appear beyond doubt from
the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts
entitling the party to recovery." Id. at ¶
6, citing O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union,
Inc.,42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975), syllabus. As with a
Civ.R. 12(B)(1) motion, "the standard of review for a
12(B)(6) motion is de ...