Title: State ex rel. Richard v. Cuyahoga Cty. Commrs.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Richard v. Cuyahoga Cty. Commrs., 89 Ohio St.3d 205, 2000-Ohio-135.] 
 
 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. RICHARD, APPELLANT, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 
ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Richard v. Cuyahoga Cty. Commrs. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 
205.] 
Appellate procedure — Appeal dismissed when not properly perfected. 
(No. 99-2250 — Submitted April 10, 2000 — Decided June 21, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 66528. 
 
On February 28, 1995, the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County exercised 
its inherent authority to deny appellant, Donald L. Richard, in forma pauperis 
status for the future filing of original actions in that court.  State ex rel. Richard v. 
Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1995), 100 Ohio App.3d 592, 654 N.E.2d 443.  
The court of appeals found that Richard had consistently abused the process of that 
court by filing sixty-three original actions over a three-year period.  Id., 100 Ohio 
App.3d at 593-594, 654 N.E.2d at 444. 
 
Instead of appealing this judgment, Richard waited until October 1999, 
when he filed a Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion in the court of appeals for relief from the 
February 28, 1995 judgment to correct alleged judicial misconduct of the court of 
appeals judges who entered the judgment.  In his motion, Richard claimed that the 
1995 judgment was erroneous because the court imposed the sanction denying him 
 
 
2
in forma pauperis status in the context of a reconsideration motion and because the 
myriad of original actions filed by Richard were not frivolous.  The court of 
appeals denied the motion. 
 
The cause is now before this court upon Richard’s purported appeal as of 
right. 
__________________ 
 
Donald L. Richard, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We dismiss Richard’s appeal.  Richard did not file a timely 
appeal from the February 28, 1995 court of appeals judgment revoking his in 
forma pauperis status for the future filing of original actions in that court.  See 
S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(1). 
 
Richard’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment did not extend the 
time for him to appeal the 1995 judgment.  “A Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from 
judgment cannot be used as a substitute for a timely appeal or as a means to extend 
the time for perfecting an appeal from the original judgment.”  Key v. Mitchell 
(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 89, 90-91, 689 N.E.2d 548, 549; State ex rel. Durkin v. 
Ungaro (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 191, 192, 529 N.E.2d 1268, 1269.  Richard’s claims 
concerning the propriety of the 1995 court of appeals judgment could have been 
raised in a timely appeal from that judgment.  And to the extent that Richard is 
 
 
3
claiming newly discovered evidence to support his Civ.R. 60(B)(5) claim, Civ.R. 
60(B)(5) cannot be used in this manner.  Strack v. Pelton (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 
172, 174, 637 N.E.2d 914, 916. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we dismiss Richard’s appeal because it was not 
properly perfected. 
Appeal dismissed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.