Case Title: State ex rel. Jackson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

Citation: 2014-Ohio-2353

Docket Number: 2013-0693

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2014-06-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Jackson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-2353.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2014-OHIO-2353 
THE STATE EX REL. JACKSON, APPELLANT, v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE 
AUTHORITY ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Jackson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-2353.] 
Mandamus—Civ.R. 60(B)—Relief from judgment—Civ.R. 41(A)(1)—Double-
dismissal rule—Negligence of relator’s attorney in voluntarily dismissing 
complaint for second time, thereby destroying relator’s ability to refile, is 
inexcusable neglect and is attributable to relator—Court of appeals did 
not abuse its discretion in denying Civ.R. 60(B) relief. 
(No. 2013-0693—Submitted December 10, 2013—Decided June 5, 2014.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 12AP-675. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Sonya R. Jackson, appeals the decision of the Tenth 
District Court of Appeals denying her motions for relief from judgment and for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
leave to file an amended complaint in mandamus.  For the reasons set forth below, 
we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Background 
{¶ 2} The history of this case begins with the filing of a pro se 
declaratory-judgment action against the members of the parole board in Cuyahoga 
Common Pleas Court.  Jackson v. Mauser, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-12-773475 
(“Jackson I”).  In that suit, Jackson argued that the parole board, in its 
consideration of her parole request, disregarded a binding mandate from the 
governor.  On March 21, 2012, Jackson filed a Civ.R. 41(A) notice of voluntary 
dismissal. 
{¶ 3} On August 15, 2012, Jackson, now represented by Assistant State 
Public Defender Dennis Pusateri, filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the 
Tenth District Court of Appeals against respondents, Ohio Adult Parole Authority 
and the Ohio Parole Board.  State ex rel. Jackson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 10th 
Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-675 (“Jackson II”).  In that complaint, she made the 
following allegations: 
{¶ 4} (1)  Jackson was sentenced to prison for a term of 20 years to life.  
In November 2009, after she had served 11 years of her sentence, Governor 
Strickland commuted her sentence to 12 years to life.  The warrant of 
commutation made Jackson eligible for parole and directed the parole board to 
release her “when the Board determines that she is prepared to integrate 
successfully into society.” 
{¶ 5} (2)  The parole board conducted a hearing on January 7, 2010.  The 
board declined to release Jackson and continued consideration of her parole until 
she completed the original minimum sentence of 20 years “in order to not demean 
the serious nature of the crime.” 
January Term, 2014 
 
3
{¶ 6} (3)  By basing its decision on the seriousness of the offense, rather 
than her ability to reintegrate into society, the board disregarded its legal mandate 
from the governor. 
{¶ 7} Upon review of the complaint, a magistrate recommended 
dismissal, on the ground that the affidavit listing prior actions attached to the 
complaint named four such actions but described only one, thereby failing to 
comply with R.C. 2969.25(A). 
{¶ 8} Faced with the magistrate’s recommendation, Pusateri decided that 
rather than fight the dismissal, he would simply allow the court to dismiss the 
action and then refile the complaint. 
{¶ 9} Pusateri did not receive the necessary affidavits back from Jackson 
until October 31, 2012.  During the two months between the magistrate’s 
recommendation and Pusateri’s receipt of the executed affidavits, a notion 
“erroneously settled into [his] head” that the court had dismissed Jackson II, even 
though he had never received an entry of dismissal.  He therefore filed a new 
mandamus petition on November 1, 2012, State ex rel. Jackson v. Ohio Adult 
Parole Auth., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-938 (“Jackson III”). 
{¶ 10} On December 3, 2012, the respondents filed a motion to stay 
Jackson III because Jackson II, which raised the same issues, was still pending, 
despite the magistrate’s recommendation. 
{¶ 11} Rather than move to amend the Jackson II complaint, Pusateri 
elected to dismiss Jackson II voluntarily and proceed under the complaint in 
Jackson III, as that course of action was “simpler,” presumably because the 
complaint in that case already had the necessary affidavits attached. 
{¶ 12} Respondents then moved for summary judgment in Jackson III on 
the ground that the voluntary dismissal of Jackson II triggered the “double 
dismissal” rule, by which a second voluntary dismissal under Civ.R. 41(A) 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
becomes a final judgment on the merits.  The court of appeals agreed and granted 
summary judgment in favor of the board in Jackson III on June 28, 2013. 
{¶ 13} In response, Pusateri filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from 
the judgment of dismissal in Jackson II, arguing that the voluntary dismissal was 
the product of “excusable neglect.”  He supported the motion with his own 
affidavit, in which he conceded that he was aware of Jackson’s pro se declaratory-
judgment action and of her voluntary dismissal of that action.  “It did not occur 
me [sic] that it could be argued that my client’s pro se declaratory judgment 
action * * *, referred to in an affidavit of prior action attached to the complaint in 
[Jackson III], was a voluntary dismissal that could trigger the ‘double dismissal’ 
rule contained in Civ.R. 41(A).” 
{¶ 14} “I was negligent,” he concluded, “for inadvertently failing to 
connect the dots between my voluntary dismissal of [Jackson II] and my client’s 
voluntary dismissal of her pro se declaratory judgment case.”  He also filed a 
motion for leave to amend the Jackson II complaint in order to attach the omitted 
affidavits.  The court of appeals denied the motions on March 19, 2013. 
{¶ 15} Jackson appealed Jackson II to this court.  The matter has been 
fully briefed and is ripe for adjudication. 
Legal analysis 
{¶ 16} The “double dismissal” rule is set forth in Civ.R. 41(A)(1): “a 
notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits of any claim that 
the plaintiff has once dismissed in any court.”  The second voluntary dismissal is 
thus with prejudice, and res judicata will bar the filing of a third action.  State ex 
rel. Dillard Dept. Stores v. Ryan, 122 Ohio St.3d 241, 2009-Ohio-2683, 910 
N.E.2d 438, ¶ 13; Olynyk v. Scoles, 114 Ohio St.3d 56, 2007-Ohio-2878, 868 
N.E.2d 254, ¶ 8. 
{¶ 17} Jackson twice voluntarily invoked Civ.R. 41(A) to dismiss her 
case.  The second dismissal was thus with prejudice, and res judicata barred the 
January Term, 2014 
 
5
new complaint in Jackson III.  Her only remaining avenue, therefore, was to 
persuade the court to vacate the final judgment in Jackson II. 
{¶ 18} To prevail on a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment, a 
movant must demonstrate (1) a meritorious claim or defense in the event relief is 
granted, (2) entitlement to relief under one of the provisions of Civ.R. 60(B)(1) 
through (5), and (3) timeliness of the motion.  Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 
172, 174, 637 N.E.2d 914 (1994).  The timeliness of Jackson’s motion is not in 
dispute. 
{¶ 19} Civ.R. 60(B) provides that “[o]n motion and upon such terms as 
are just, the court may relieve a party * * * from a final judgment, order or 
proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or 
excusable neglect * * *.”  To determine whether neglect is excusable or 
inexcusable, a court must consider all the surrounding facts and circumstances.  
Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 21, 520 N.E.2d 564 (1988).  
Pusateri’s decision to dismiss Jackson II, rather than seek leave to amend the 
complaint, certainly qualifies as neglect.  See Marion Prod. Credit Assn. v. 
Cochran, 40 Ohio St.3d 265, 271, 533 N.E.2d 325 (1988) (failure to file reply to 
counterclaim due to an oversight “clearly * * * amounts to an admission of 
neglect”). 
{¶ 20} The issue before the court of appeals was whether Pusateri’s 
conduct qualified as excusable neglect, within the meaning of Civ.R. 60(B)(1).  
The court of appeals concluded that it did not. 
{¶ 21} An appellate court reviews a decision on a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for 
abuse of discretion.  Rose Chevrolet at 21.  We apply this same standard when, as 
in this case, we are acting as a first-level appellate court reviewing a case 
originating in the court of appeals.  State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner, 76 Ohio St.3d 
149, 151, 666 N.E.2d 1134 (1996). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 22} The abuse-of-discretion standard extends to the question whether a 
movant has demonstrated excusable neglect.  See Peter M. Klein Co. v. Dawson, 
10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP-1122, 2011-Ohio-2812, ¶ 11-12. 
 
The [trial] court’s discretion to determine whether excusable 
neglect exists “necessarily connotes a wide latitude of freedom of 
action * * * and a broad range of more or less tangible or 
quantifiable factors may enter into the trial court’s determination.  
Simply put, two trial courts could reach opposite results on roughly 
similar facts and neither be guilty of an abuse of discretion.” 
 
Id. at ¶ 11, quoting McGee v. C & S Lounge, 108 Ohio App.3d 656, 661, 671 
N.E.2d 589 (10th Dist.1996). 
{¶ 23} We have defined excusable neglect in the negative: a defendant’s 
inaction is not excusable neglect if it can be deemed a “ ‘complete disregard for 
the judicial system.’ ”  Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 18, 20, 665 
N.E.2d 1102 (1996), quoting GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 
47 Ohio St.2d 146, 153, 351 N.E.2d 113 (1976). 
{¶ 24} A represented party bears a greater burden to show excusable 
neglect.  “[A]ttorney conduct falling ‘substantially below what is reasonable 
under the circumstances’ constitutes inexcusable neglect.”  Hai v. Flower Hosp., 
6th Dist. Lucas No. L-07-1423, 2008-Ohio-5295, ¶ 21, quoting GTE at 152; see 
also Moore v. Emmanuel Family Training Ctr., Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 64, 68, 479 
N.E.2d 879 (1985) (the phrase “substantially below what is reasonable under the 
circumstances” in GTE is “additional guidance as to when conduct is excusable”). 
{¶ 25} Thus, attorney Pusateri’s conduct is inexcusable if it can be labeled 
a complete disregard for the judicial system or if the conduct falls substantially 
below what was reasonable under the circumstances.  See, e.g., France v. France, 
January Term, 2014 
 
7
8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 95629 and 95729, 2011-Ohio-2402, ¶ 21; Engle v. 
Rostami, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23914, 2011-Ohio-878, ¶ 10; Heard v. 
DuBose, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-060265, 2007-Ohio-551, ¶ 19. 
{¶ 26} Pusateri admitted two mistakes: assuming that this case had 
already been dismissed and failing to recall that one of his client’s prior filings 
was a declaratory-judgment action raising similar claims. 
{¶ 27} As to the first error, the court of appeals “reject[ed] counsel’s 
assertion that his erroneous belief about the status of the case constitutes mistake, 
inadvertence, or excusable neglect as those terms are defined in the context of 
Civ.R. 60(B).”  Jackson II, at ¶ 9.  It appears that the erroneous decision to 
dismiss Jackson II was made as a matter of convenience; it was easier to proceed 
in Jackson III because that complaint had the necessary affidavits.  The court of 
appeals went on to hold that counsel’s failure to recall previous dismissals was 
also not excusable neglect under Civ.R. 60(B).  Id., ¶ 10.  By his own admission, 
Pusateri was aware of his client’s pro se declaratory-judgment action in the 
common pleas court and of her voluntary dismissal of that action. We have long 
held that the inexcusable neglect of an attorney is attributable to the represented 
party.  GTE Automatic, 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 351 N.E.2d 113, paragraph four of the 
syllabus. 
{¶ 28} We hold that the court of appeals’ decision rejecting Jackson’s 
assertion of excusable neglect was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable 
and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.  Rather, the court based its decision 
on a well-reasoned analysis of counsel’s deliberate actions.  We therefore affirm 
the decision to deny Jackson’s motions for relief from judgment and leave to file 
an amended complaint. 
{¶ 29} Because we affirm the court of appeals’ ruling that Jackson failed 
to establish exclusable neglect, we do not reach the question whether Jackson met 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
the remaining requirement for relief from judgment: demonstration of a 
meritorious claim if relief is granted. 
{¶ 30} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY and FRENCH, JJ., concur. 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs in judgment only. 
PFEIFER, LANZINGER, and O’NEILL, JJ., dissent. 
_________________________ 
O’NEILL, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 31} I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case.  Any 
fair reading of the court of appeals decision will reveal that it is a classic elevation 
of form over substance.  Civ.R. 60(B) is a remedial rule, and it was an abuse of 
discretion for the lower court to deny Jackson leave to file an amended complaint 
so that she can have a full and fair hearing on the merits of her case. 
{¶ 32} The proper application of Civ.R. 60 is all the more significant in 
this unique matter in light of Jackson’s allegation that a substantive order of the 
governor of Ohio is being ignored.  This simply cannot happen in a judicial 
system founded on the rule of law. 
{¶ 33} Jackson alleges that at her parole hearing, the Ohio Parole Board 
failed to follow conditions in a warrant of commutation issued by the governor.  
Attempts to address this failure resulted in mistakes on the part of Jackson’s 
attorney.  The issue is whether these mistakes are the sort that can be remedied by 
Civ.R. 60(B).  The majority opinion restates this court’s definition of excusable 
neglect, once again defining that term in the negative: “a defendant’s inaction is 
not excusable neglect if it can be deemed a ‘ “complete disregard for the judicial 
system.” ’ ” Majority Opinion at ¶ 23, quoting Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 76 
January Term, 2014 
 
9
Ohio St.3d 18, 20, 665 N.E.2d 1102 (1996), quoting GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. 
ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 153, 351 N.E.2d 113 (1976). 
{¶ 34} In Colley v. Bazell, 64 Ohio St.2d 243, 248, 416 N.E.2d 605 
(1980), this court stated that  
 
the concept of “excusable neglect” must be construed in keeping 
with the proposition that Civ.R. 60(B)(1) is a remedial rule to be 
liberally construed, while bearing in mind that Civ.R. 60(B) 
constitutes an attempt to “strike a proper balance between the 
conflicting principles that litigation must be brought to an end and 
justice should be done.”  11 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & 
Procedure 140, Section 2851, quoted in Doddridge v. Fitzpatrick 
(1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 9, 12 [371 N.E.2d 214]. 
 
{¶ 35} The majority does not appear to believe that the ill-fated dismissal 
strategy was a cynical move designed to deceive.  Indeed, there is no reason to 
believe that it was anything but an honest mistake by an attorney attempting to get 
his client’s plight before the proper tribunal.  It is precisely the sort of case that 
Civ.R. 60(B) is designed to address. The majority is simply mistaken when it 
states that these facts demonstrate a complete disregard for the judicial system or 
a substandard performance.  Total disregard for the judicial system connotes far 
worse behavior, such as a litigant who obstinately refuses to attend a deposition or 
a lawyer who repeatedly misses court dates.  If Jackson’s allegations are true, an 
order from the governor of this state is being ignored.  By labeling her attorney’s 
honest mistake “inexcusable,” the majority denies her a chance to prove her case 
and perhaps even gain her freedom.  Some might argue that the real “disregard for 
the judicial system” is to be found not in the attorney’s unfortunate mistake but in 
today’s hypertechnical result. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
{¶ 36} I make no judgment here as to whether the petition should have 
been granted on its merits.  But to hold, as the majority does, that procedure is 
more important than substance is simply wrong.  I therefore respectfully dissent. 
PFEIFER and LANZINGER, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion. 
_________________________ 
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Stephen A. Goldmeier, 
Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Peter L. Jamison, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellees. 
_________________________