[Cite as Prewitt v. Wood Cty. Pros., 2016-Ohio-1477.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 WOOD COUNTY 

Dan R. Prewitt Court of Appeals No. WD-15-029 

 

 Appellant Trial Court No. 2014CV0230 

v. 

Wood County Prosecutor’s Office, et al. DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellees Decided: April 8, 2016 

* * * * * 

 Dan R. Prewitt, pro se. 

 Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and 

 Arlen B. de la Serna, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee 

 Wood County Prosecutor’s Office. 

 Teresa L. Grigsby, for appellee Lake Township Police Department. 

* * * * * 

OSOWIK, J. 

{¶ 1} This is an accelerated pro se appeal from a judgment of the Wood County 

Court of Common Pleas that sua sponte dismissed with prejudice appellant Dan R. 
2.

Prewitt’s pro se complaint against the Wood County Prosecutor’s Office and the Lake 

Township Police Department for failure to state a legally cognizable claim. 

{¶ 2} The record reflects that on January 11, 2014, appellant picked up his 

granddaughter from school and took her to his residence, which he shares with the child’s 

father. Neither appellant nor the child’s father had custody of the child at that time. On 

January 13, 2014, Lake Township Police Chief Mark Hummer, acting on authority of a 

prior court order and upon advice of the Wood County Prosecutor, went to appellant’s 

home to remove the child and return her to her aunt, who at that time had custody. 

{¶ 3} On May 5, 2014, appellant filed the complaint at issue. Appellant alleged 

that the child was in his “protected care” and that the “best interest of the child 

supersedes any orders of the court.” The complaint alleged that Chief Hummer was 

“ordered” by the Wood County Prosecutor to enter his residence and that said entry was 

made without a warrant and without consent. In the complaint, appellant suggested 

claims including warrantless entry, false arrest and excessive force. On March 6, 2015, 

the trial court sua sponte dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. 

{¶ 4} On appeal, appellant sets forth two assignments of error, both of which 

challenge the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint. Appellant argues that the trial court 

unfairly dismissed his complaint without offering him an opportunity to amend it to cure 

the pleading deficiencies and without clarifying how to do so. He also asserts that the 

trial court improperly dismissed the complaint with prejudice. 
3.

{¶ 5} Pro se litigants are not accorded greater rights than parties who retain 

counsel, and the trial court does not have a duty to assist a pro se litigant in remedying 

deficient pleadings. See Citibank S.C., N.A. v. Wood, 169 Ohio App.3d 269, 2006-Ohio5755, 862 N.E.2d 576 (2d Dist.). Additionally, there are no factual allegations in the 

complaint sufficient to state a claim for any of the causes of action asserted by appellant. 

Rather, the complaint contains a series of unsupported legal conclusions. Appellant’s 

complaint also fails to comply with the pleading requirements of Civ.R. 8(A)(1), as 

appellant failed to allege sufficient underlying facts to support the alleged claim and 

simply stated legal conclusions. Finally, we note the complaint also contains a section 

titled “Immunity” which sets forth a general discussion of immunity law and is clearly 

outside the bounds of pleading requirements. 

{¶ 6} Ohio courts have held that “[t]he power to dismiss for failure to prosecute is 

within the sound discretion of the trial court, and appellate review is confined solely to 

whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Williams v. RPA Devel. Corp., 10th Dist. 

Franklin No. 07AP-881, 2008-Ohio-2695, ¶ 6 (citation omitted). Further, the Supreme 

Court of Ohio has held that sua sponte dismissals without notice and an opportunity to 

amend are appropriate if the complaint is frivolous or obviously without merit. See State 

ex. rel. Fogel v. Steiner, 74 Ohio St.3d 158, 161, 656 N.E.2d 1288 (1995). 

{¶ 7} Based on the foregoing and our review of the record, we find that the trial 

court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint. Appellant’s first 

assignment of error is not well-taken. 
4.

{¶ 8} In his second assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court should 

not have dismissed his complaint with prejudice. While we recognize that Ohio courts 

ordinarily favor the disposition of a case on the merits, given the fact that appellant has 

no legal authority to bring this particular cause of action since he did not have custody of 

the minor child, we are unable to find that the trial court abused its discretion in 

dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Accordingly, appellant’s second assignment of 

error is not well-taken. 

{¶ 9} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Wood County Court of 

Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant pursuant to 

App.R. 24. 

Judgment affirmed. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. 

See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4. 

Arlene Singer, J. _______________________________ 

JUDGE 

Thomas J. Osowik, J. 

_______________________________ 

Stephen A. Yarbrough, J. JUDGE 

CONCUR. 

_______________________________ 

JUDGE 

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of 

Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported 

version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: 

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.