NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0320n.06 F iled: Jun e 5, 2008 No. 07-3937 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
MAL COL M HOYL E, P laintif f-App ellant,
v. MATTHEW M. BAE PPL ER; ROBERT TAYL OR De fend ant s- App e lle e s.
v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT COURT F OR THE NORTHERN DI STRI CT OF O H IO M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N BEF ORE: NO RRIS, G IBBO NS, and G RI F F IN , C ir c uitJudg e s. P ER CURIAM . This single- issue appea l p re s ents a nar row que stion: Does the one-year period set out in the Ohio Saving s Statute, Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.19, beg in to run on the date that a volunt ary dismiss al was executed and f iled by the par ties or when it wa s entere d by the cour t on its do c ke t? Ac c or din g to t

he c omp la int , th is l aws uit ha d it s g e ne sis in a

po lic e c ha se thr ou g h th e str e e ts of Cleveland. Plaintiff wa s driving a car with two passeng ers on Aug ust 27, 2002, when de fenda nt office rs Matthew B aepple r and Rober t Taylor g ave c hase: When the vehicle was c ompletely stopped, Def

endants B aepple r and Ta

ylor approa ched the vehicle on f oot in an attempt to arre st all the occupants of t he vehic le, when wi t h o u t warningor justification Def endant B aepple r shot and wounde dNo. 07-3937

Hoyle v . Baeppler

- 2 - Pla int if f Ma lc olm Ho yle and De fe nd ant Ta ylor sh ot [p a sse ng e r] Ri c ard o M a so n in the ba c k c a

us ingfata l w ound s. W h i l e t h e P l ai n t i ff

’s i n j u ri es we re cau s edb y

De fe n d an tBa ep p l er ’s s h o o t i n g, Def endant Ta ylor play ed a sig nificant role in setting i n t o m o tion the shooting by falsely claiming he wa s b ei n g pinned by the vehicle and that he w as in dang er, there by aiding and abe tting the excessive us e of forc e and by using ex cessive f orce himself.

. . . . Plaintiff Malcolm Hoyle suffe red se rious and permanent inj uries to hi s head and fa ce, r equiringextensi v e s u rger y and hospitalization. He has suffe red loss of ey esig ht and hea

ring and is perma

nently disfigur ed. Complaint at ¶¶ 8-9, 11. On Oc t o b er

1 5 , 2 0 0 4 , p l ai n t i ff

fi l eds u i t aga i n s tBa ep p l er , T ay l o r, t h re e o t h er i n d i viduals, and the City of Cleveland. T he par ties ag ree that this complain t was filed within the statute of limit ations. Pursuant to Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) , on April 3, 2006, the parties sig ned a Voluntar

y Stipul ation dismiss ing de fenda nts Bae ppler, Ta

ylor, and the City

of Cleveland w ithout prejudice . This document, which wa s not signe d by the di strict judge , was filed by the par ties and enter ed on the c ourt’s docke t sheet on April 3, 2006. On Apr il 18, 2006, the docket shee t bear s the following entry : “ Dismissal without prejudice as to De fenda nts Matthew B aepple r, Robert Ta y lor, and the City

of Cleveland. E ntere d by J udg e Solomon Oliver J r. on 4/18/2006.” On Ap ri l 13 , 2 00 7, pla int if

f r e fi le d a c omp lai nt nam in g T aylor and B a e pp le r a s th e on ly d ef en d an t s . De fe n d an t s fi l ed a mo t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e co mp l ai n tas u n t i m el y u n d er t h e O h i o S av i n gs Statut e , w hic h r e qu ir e s c a se s th a t ha ve fa ile d “ oth e rw ise tha

n u po n the me ri ts” to b e re -f

ile d “ wi thi nNo. 07-3937

Hoyle v . Baeppler

- 3 - one y ear afte r the date of
. . . the pl aintiff’s failure otherwise than upon the m erits .
. . .” Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.19(A)
. The district cour

t answer ed the sole question on appeal – Did the one -y ear period for

ref iling under the Ohio Savings Statute be g in to run on the date the par ties executed and f

iled the dismissal
or fr om t he date tha

t th e dis mis sa l w a s e nte re d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt ? – a s f

oll ow s: Def endants a rgue that a v o l u n t ary

dismiss al is unilateral a

nd self-e x ecuting . They contend that this makes the date of filing the critica l date from which to calculate the one-year limit ation. Plaint i ff ar g ues that the c ourt speaks through its docket, and there fore , the date of

the cour t’s entry should apply . For

the foll owing rea sons, the court c oncludes that the date a voluntar y dismiss al i s filed m ust serve as the ope rative date of te rm inatio n a

nd the date fr om whic h a

ny a pp lic a ble statut e of lim itatio ns is me a sure d, re g ard le ss o f s ub se qu e nt c ourt e ntr ie s. Or de r, July

6, 20 07 a t 5- 6 ( c itatio ns omi tte d) . A s th e dis tr ic t c ourt no te d, su

bs tanti a l a

ut hori ty supports this conclusion. See, e .g. , Gr e e n v . Ne v e rs , 111 F.3d 1295, 1301 ( 6th Cir. 1997) (noting that “a properly stipulated dismiss al under Rule 41(a) (1)( ii) is self-executing and does not re quire j u d i c i a l a pp ro va l” )) ; Ha wk

ins v . I nn ov ati v e Pr op e rty

Mg mt
. , 2 0 0 6 W L3 3 7 3 1 5 8 (O h i o C t
. Ap p . Nov. 22, 2006) (“ [T] he date of the filing of the notice , not the journalization date of a se parate and

u n re qu i re d co u rt en t ry , [ wa s ] t h e co n t ro l l i n g d at e. ”) (q u o t i n g Goble v. Univ. H osp. of Cleveland, 695 N. E. 2d 11 71 , 1 17 2 ( Oh io C t. A

pp . 1 99 7) ); Pa

y ton v . R e hb e rg , 6 94 N. E. 2d 13 79, 138 5 ( Oh io C t. App. 1997) (“ Dismissals pursuant to Ci v. R. 41(A)( 1 ) ar e ful ly and complete ly

eff ectuated upon filing of the notice of

voluntary

dismiss al b y t h e plaintiff. In other wor ds, the mere filing of the notice of d is mi s s a l b y

th e p la inti f

f a u to mati c a ll y

te r mi n a te s th e c a s e w it

h o u t i n te r v e n ti o nb y

the court.” ).No. 07-3937

Hoyle v . Baeppler

- 4 - Wh il e th is c a s e ar is e s f

r o m t r a g ic c ir c u ms ta

n c e s – o n e te e n a g e r

w a s k il le d

an d an o ther seriously injured – the mer its of the § 1983 action ar e not bef ore us. Havingcar efully

revie wed the
re c or d b e low

and the br ie fs su

bmi tte d by

the pa rt ie s, we are pe rs ua de d th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt pr op e rl y
ana ly zed the e ff e c t of Oh io l aw o n th is l iti g a tio n. Rathe r tha n iss ue a de ta ile d o pin ion , w hic h w ou ld
se rv e no us e fu l purp os e , we a do pt the re a so nin g of the dis tr ic t c ourt se t fo rt h in its Or de r date d July 6, 2007. Th e jud g me nt i s affir m e d.