Swiger v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Swiger v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2004-Ohio-3659.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO SHELBY F. SWIGER : Plaintiff : v. : OHIO DEPARTMENT OF : REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS : Defendant ::::::::::::::::: CASE NO. 2004-04540-AD ENTRY OF DISMISSAL On April 13, 2004, plaintiff, Shelby F. Swiger, filed a complaint against Correction. defendant, Department of Rehabilitation and Plaintiff alleges on March 18, 2004, Inspector Edward Young engaged in criminal conduct in violation of Revised Code sections 2921.21, compounding a crime; 2921.44, dereliction of duty; and 2921.45, interfering with civil rights. plaintiff asserts defendant, Department of Accordingly, Rehabilitation and Correction, acted as an aiddor & abettor [sic] in violation of Revised Code sections 2923.01, conspiracy; 2923.03, complicity; and 2923.31, a pattern of corrupt activity. All actions plaintiff alleges that were committed against him were criminal in nature. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $2,018.67 which represents $204.89 for compensatory damages, $126.55 for nominal damages and $1,683.23 for exemplary damages for wantonness, infliction of mental anguish, emotion stress and to prevent persons from doing the same in the future to claimant and others similarly situated. On May 6, 2004, this court issued an entry requiring plaintiff Case No. 2004-04540-AD -2- to submit the filing fee. ENTRY On May 17, 2004, plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Civ.R. 60(H) and (B). On May 27, 2004, defendant filed a motion to consolidate claim nos. 2004-04523-AD, 2004-04531-AD, 2004-04540-AD and 2004-04558-AD under 2004-04523-AD and dismiss the remaining cases. Defendant argues all the claims concern the same subject matter, the mailing out of plaintiff s legal mail/personal property, and all claims involve the same defendant. motion in opposition to On May 27, 2004, plaintiff filed a defendant s motion to consolidate. Plaintiff argues the cases should not be consolidated since he is asserting causes of actions against a number of individuals who have committed crimes against him. In support of the motion, plaintiff stated in pertinent part: Plaintiff filed five (5) different complaints against nine Severally [sic] Liable Defendants for their allegedly-IndependentIllegal (Criminal) Action (Conduct) of placing plaintiff under Duress and Stress by the use of Coercion and Force to Mail-Out ALL of his Current-Pending Legal Material, of-which plaintiff has a Statutory Right of Severalty [sic]. In the alternative, plaintiff states he would agree to a consolidation of his claims only if claim no. 2004-04931-AD, a claim against defendant, Attorney General s Office, and claim no. 2004-UNFILED-AD are included. Also, he believes if judgment is rendered in his favor he should receive judgment based on the actions of the individuals involved in the amounts specified in each complaint. On June 7, 2004, plaintiff filed a memorandum contra to defendant s May 27, 2004, motion to consolidate. On June 10, 2004, plaintiff filed a motion to waive costs and fees due to indigency status. Case No. 2004-04540-AD -3- ENTRY R.C. 2743.02(E) in pertinent part states: The only defendant in original actions in the court of claims is the state. Consequently, this court will not consider any cause of action against Inspector Young for any conduct allegedly taken outside the scope of his employment. With respect to the criminal charges leveled against defendant, this court has no jurisdiction over these matters. This court has no criminal jurisdiction and is statutorily limited to civil actions. alternative, if plaintiff is See R.C. 2743.10. alleging his civil In the rights were violated by defendant, this court has no jurisdiction over these matters either. Conley v. Shearer (1992), 64 Ohio St. 3d 284; Bleicher v. University of Cincinnati College of Medicine (1992), 78 Ohio App. 3d 302. Civ. R. 12(H)(3) states: Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action. Having considered all the evidence in the claim file, and for the reasons set forth above, plaintiff s motion pursuant to 60(A) and (B) is DENIED, defendant s motion to consolidate is DENIED, plaintiff s motions in opposition are MOOT, and plaintiff s motion to waive costs and fees is MOOT. Plaintiff s case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Civ. R. 12(H)(3). The court shall absorb the court costs of this case. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this entry of dismissal and its date of entry upon the journal. ________________________________ Case No. 2004-04540-AD -4- ENTRY DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk Entry cc: Shelby F. Swiger, #A215-336 2500 South Avon-Belden Road Grafton, Ohio 44044-9802 Plaintiff, Pro se Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 Defendant DRB/laa 5/24 Filed 6/17/04 Sent to S.C. reporter 7/7/04

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.