Sixth Circuit Holds Dismissal Not Automatic When Plaintiff Simultaneously Files Same Claims in State Court
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of a plaintiff’s claim of retaliation, finding the district court misapplied a waiver doctrine that prevented persons from filing the same claim in state and federal courts.
Lionel Harris is a prisoner at the Madison Correctional Institution, a prison in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction system. In 2016, he filed a complaint in federal court under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that mailroom staff retaliated against him for filing various institutional grievances, denying him mail and delaying his outbound mail to courts.
After filing an initial complaint with one claim, he filed an amended complaint with eight additional claims. All were dismissed by the district court over four rounds of summary judgement. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal as to only one count.
The district court dismissed that claim pursuant to Leaman v. Ohio Dep’t of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities, 825 F.2d 946 (6th Cir. 1987). Under Ohio Revised Code § 2743.02(A)(1), “filing a civil action in the court of claims results in a complete waiver of any cause of action, based on the same act or omission, that the filing party has against any officer or employee, as defined in section 109.36 of the Revised Code.” Leaman held that “the waiver provision of section 2743.02(A)(1) is not inconsistent with § 1983 or invalid under the Supremacy Clause,” meaning that any party who files in the state court of claims is said to have waived their right to file the same claim in federal court.
The Circuit Court noted, however, that a “waiver under section 2743.02(A)(1) must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.” Citing Leaman, the Court added that, “Where a plaintiff was represented by competent counsel before the Ohio Court of Claims, a waiver can be presumed to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.”
But for pro se litigants like Harris, “there is no such presumption, and the district court must make a ‘factual finding as to whether [the plaintiff] knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to proceed in federal court.’”
The Court determined that “[t]he defendants offered no convincing evidence that Harris was familiar with the waiver provision of the Ohio Court of Claims Act,” and “Harris never mentioned the waiver provision in any of his filings in the Court of Claims.”
Further, “Harris did not file his federal complaint until after ODRC filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction over his claims,” wrote the Sixth Circuit. “This lack of knowledge about the court’s jurisdiction further shows that Harris did not understand that his filing in the Court of Claims would operate as a waiver under Ohio law.”
For this reason, the Sixth Circuit remanded the case for review of that claim alone. See: Harris v. Sowers, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 2772 (6th Cir.).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Harris v. Sowers
| Cite | 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 2772 (6th Cir.) |
|---|---|
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |