[Cite as Duff v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 2017-Ohio-8895.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

Dennis Duff, : 

 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 16AP-851 

 (Ct. of Cl. No. 2016-00445) 

v. : 

 (ACCELERATED CALENDAR) 

Ohio Adult Parole Authority, : 

 

 Defendant-Appellee. : 

 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on December 7, 2017 

 

On brief: Dennis Duff, pro se. 

On brief: Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Jeanna V. 

Jacobus, for appellee. 

 

APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio 

BROWN, J. 

{¶ 1} Dennis Duff, plaintiff-appellant, appeals from the judgment of the Court of 

Claims of Ohio in which the court granted the motion to dismiss appellant's complaint, 

based on lack of jurisdiction, filed by the Ohio Adult Parole Authority ("OAPA"), 

defendant-appellee. 

{¶ 2} Appellant is an inmate in the custody of the Ohio Department of 

Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"). In July 2015, he was interviewed by the parole 

board for a final revocation hearing for parole violations. The parole board extended his 

incarceration for an additional 30 months. 

{¶ 3} On June 2, 2016, appellant filed a complaint seeking declaratory judgment 

and injunctive relief against OAPA, as well as raising an apparent negligence claim, 
No. 16AP-851 2 

alleging the parole board used inadequate and incorrect information in making its parole 

determination. Appellant also requested $50,000 in monetary damages. On July 12, 

2016, OAPA filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1), claiming appellant was, 

in essence, appealing the parole board's denial, and the Court of Claims lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction to decide such a case. 

{¶ 4} On November 21, 2016, the Court of Claims granted OAPA's motion to 

dismiss. The court agreed with OAPA that the root of appellant's complaint was appealing 

his parole decision and seeking to have it overturned. The court concluded it had no 

jurisdiction to hear a claim attacking a parole board's decision to grant or deny parole 

because that decision is an executive function involving a high degree of official judgment 

or discretion. Appellant appeals the judgment of the Court of Claims, asserting the 

following assignment of error: 

TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN 

DISMISSING APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT UNDER CIVIL 

RULE 12(B)(1), BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT WAS PROPER 

AND THE LOWER COURT HAD EXCLUSIVE 

JURISDICTION. 

{¶ 5} Appellant argues in his sole assignment of error the court erred when it 

dismissed his complaint, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1), because the complaint was proper, 

and the Court of Claims had exclusive jurisdiction. In ruling on a Civ.R. 12(B)(1) motion 

to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the trial court determines whether the 

claim raises any action cognizable in that court. Brown v. Levin, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-349, 

2012-Ohio-5768; Robinson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 10AP-550, 

2011-Ohio-713, ¶ 5. However, in making a determination regarding subject-matter 

jurisdiction "[t]he trial court is not confined to the allegations of the complaint," and "it 

may consider material pertinent to such inquiry without converting the motion into one 

for summary judgment." Southgate Dev. Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transm. Corp., 48 Ohio 

St.2d 211 (1976), paragraph one of the syllabus. Subject-matter jurisdiction involves " 'a 

court's power to hear and decide a case on the merits and does not relate to the rights of 

the parties.' " Robinson at ¶ 5, quoting Vedder v. Warrensville Hts., 8th Dist. No. 81005, 

2002-Ohio-5567, ¶ 14. We apply a de novo standard when we review a trial court's ruling 
No. 16AP-851 3 

on a Civ.R. 12(B)(1) motion to dismiss. Robinson at ¶ 5, citing Hudson v. Petrosurance, 

Inc., 10th Dist. No. 08AP-1030, 2009-Ohio-4307, ¶ 12. 

{¶ 6} The Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction that has exclusive, 

original jurisdiction over claims brought against the state as a result of the state's waiver 

of immunity in R.C. 2743.02. R.C. 2743.03 established the Court of Claims, granting it 

"exclusive, original jurisdiction of all civil actions against the state permitted by the waiver 

of immunity contained in section 2743.02 of the Revised Code." R.C. 2743.03(A)(1). 

Thus, claims seeking legal relief from the state as permitted by the statutory waiver of 

immunity fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. Id.; Cirino v. Ohio 

Bur. of Workers' Comp., 8th Dist. No. 104102, 2016-Ohio-8323, ¶ 46, citing Measles v. 

Indus. Comm., 128 Ohio St.3d 458, 2011-Ohio-1523,¶ 7. 

{¶ 7} Furthermore, "[t]he mere fact that claims in a complaint are couched in 

certain legal terms is insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon a court. * * * Instead, in order 

to resolve the issue of whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a party's 

claims, the court must look beyond the language used in the complaint and examine the 

underlying nature of the claims." Guillory v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 

07AP-861, 2008-Ohio-2299, ¶ 11. 

{¶ 8} In the present case, the court found the root of appellant's complaint was an 

appeal of his parole decision and his seeking to have it overturned. Appellant argues on 

appeal that he is not appealing the decision of OAPA, and he is not asking for release from 

prison. He claims he is asking for a parole hearing that is conducted within the guidelines 

of the policies and procedures outlined in OAPA's handbook. He asserts OAPA used 

inaccurate, non-existent, baseless information in making its parole determination. 

{¶ 9} We disagree with appellant's contentions and agree with the Court of Claims 

that appellant's present claims fall under the purview of our decision in Deavors v. Ohio 

Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 98AP-1105 (May 20, 1999). In Deavors, an inmate 

brought an action in the Court of Claims against ODRC, asserting ODRC wrongly 

continued his sentence. The inmate sought to be released from prison and recover 

damages incurred as a result of ODRC's continuing his sentence. The Court of Claims 

dismissed the action on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the inmate's claims. 

On appeal, this court found that a parole board's decision to grant or deny parole is an 
No. 16AP-851 4 

executive function involving a high degree of official judgment or discretion. Id., citing 

Von Hoene v. State, 20 Ohio App.3d 363, 364 (1st Dist.1985). Thus, we concluded the 

Court of Claims has no jurisdiction to hear a claim attacking a parole board's decision to 

grant or deny parole. 

{¶ 10} Although, in the present case, appellant seeks to frame his cause of action as 

one not seeking to be immediately released from prison but one seeking a parole 

redetermination based on the rules and guidelines adopted by OAPA, the underlying basis 

of his declaratory judgment claim, injunctive relief claim, and apparent negligence claim 

is that OAPA used inaccurate, non-existent, baseless information in making its parole 

determination. Such claims necessarily attack the high degree of official judgment and 

discretion the OAPA has in making parole eligibility determinations. In essence, 

appellant is arguing that the rationale OAPA utilized in arriving at its determination was 

incorrect. As such, appellant's complaint was, in effect, an appeal of OAPA's parole 

determination, which the Court of Claims lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to review. 

{¶ 11} Furthermore, the Court of Claims Act, R.C. Chapter 2743, does not apply 

"[t]o the extent that the state ha[d] previously consented to be sued" in the courts of 

common pleas. R.C. 2743.02(A)(1). Thus, if, prior to the state's waiver of immunity, the 

law permitted a party to pursue a particular type of action against the state, then the Court 

of Claims lacks jurisdiction to hear that type of action. Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v. Ohio 

Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 11AP-597, 2012-Ohio-1314, ¶ 20. As such, the 

Court of Claims has no jurisdiction over actions that only seek declaratory judgment or 

injunctive relief because, before the advent of the Act, parties could sue the state for 

declaratory and injunctive relief in the courts of common pleas. Racing Guild of Ohio, 

Local 304, 28 Ohio St.3d 317, 320 (1986). 

{¶ 12} However, when a claim for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, or other 

equitable relief is ancillary to a claim over which the Court of Claims has jurisdiction, the 

court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate the entire action. R.C. 2743.03(A)(2); Ohio 

Hosp. Assn. v. Ohio Dept. of Human Servs., 62 Ohio St.3d 97, 103 (1991). The Court of 

Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions against the state for monetary damages 

that sound in law. Measles at ¶ 7. Thus, if a plaintiff asserts a legal claim for monetary 

damages in addition to a claim for declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and all of the 
No. 16AP-851 5 

asserted claims arise out of the same circumstances, then the Court of Claims can exercise 

jurisdiction over the entire action. Interim HealthCare of Columbus, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of 

Adm. Servs., 10th Dist. No. 07AP-747, 2008-Ohio-2286, ¶ 13. 

{¶ 13} In the present case, in addition to his prayer for injunctive and declaratory 

judgment relief in his complaint, appellant prays for $50,000 in monetary relief. 

However, appellant fails to indicate in his complaint how he sustained damages in the 

amount of $50,000. Although appellant does claim he has suffered a loss of earned 

freedom as a result of OAPA's allegedly negligent parole determination, such a claim is 

contrary to his assertion that he is not seeking a release from prison or the granting of 

parole but merely a parole redetermination. What appellant actually seems to be alleging 

is that because he was entitled to be released, the state should pay him $50,000. As we 

have found above, appellant's negligence claim is one that necessarily attacks the high 

degree of official judgment and discretion the Court of Claims has in making parole 

eligibility determinations. Thus, the Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction over this cause of 

action. Given appellant has no viable legal claim for monetary damages, the Court of 

Claims had no jurisdiction over his equitable claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, we find the Court of Claims did not err when it granted 

OAPA's motion to dismiss appellant's complaint. Therefore, appellant's single assignment 

of error is overruled. 

{¶ 14} Accordingly, appellant's single assignment of error is overruled, and the 

judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

KLATT and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 

____________________