[Cite as Byrd v. Ohio Inspector Gen., 2022-Ohio-1827.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Houston Byrd, Jr., :

Plaintiff-Appellant, :

No. 21AP-578

v. : (C.P.C. No. 20CV-8271)

Ohio Inspector General, : (REGULAR CALENDAR)

Randall J. Meyer, State of Ohio et al.,

:

Defendants-Appellees.

:

D E C I S I O N

Rendered on May 31, 2022 

On brief: Houston Byrd, Jr., pro se.

On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, Iris Jin, and 

Michael A. Walton, for appellees.

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas

PER CURIAM.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Houston Byrd, Jr., appeals from a judgment of the 

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his complaint against defendantsappellees the Ohio Inspector General, Randall J. Meyer, State of Ohio et al. (collectively 

"appellees"). For the following reasons we affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On December 23, 2020, appellant filed a complaint in the common pleas 

court. The caption of the complaint names as defendants "Ohio Inspector General, Randall 

J. Meyer, State of Ohio, et. al." (Compl. at 1.) The "certificate of mailing" at the bottom of 

the complaint certifies the complaint was mailed to "the Ohio Inspector General by USPS 

Certified Mailing Ohio Inspector General, 30 East Broad Street, Ste 2940, Columbus, Ohio 
No. 21AP-578 2

43215." (Compl. at 11.) The complaint is very difficult to decipher—it makes references to 

the Ohio Inspector General, the Ohio Department of Insurance, and the Ohio Department 

of Administrative Services and contains copies of correspondences or excerpts of 

correspondence with these agencies and the Ohio Attorney General. 

{¶ 3} On January 22, 2021, appellant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings 

pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C).1

{¶ 4} On January 26, 2021, appellees filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 

12(B)(6). Appellant filed a response in opposition to appellees' motion to dismiss on 

January 27, 2021. Appellees filed a reply on February 1, 2021. 

{¶ 5} Appellees argued the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Civ.R. 

12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim as the complaint is difficult to decipher and fails to put 

them on notice of the action against them. In the alternative, appellees argued the 

complaint should be dismissed due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as only the Court 

of Claims of Ohio has jurisdiction over civil actions for monetary damages against the state. 

Appellant responded that he alleged that the Ohio Inspector General failed to perform his 

duties and in so doing violated his rights. Appellant also contends the trial court had 

jurisdiction as the Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction to hear constitutional or civil 

rights claims.

{¶ 6} On October 15, 2021, the trial court granted appellees' motion to dismiss on 

the grounds that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The 

trial court held "[p]laintiff proports to allege that he filed two complaints with Defendant 

Ohio Inspector General against the Ohio Department of Administrative Services and the 

Ohio Department of Insurance. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated his 

constitutional rights and failed to perform its duties. The Court finds that Plaintiff's 

Complaint fails to set forth allegations in a way sufficient enough to put Defendants on 

notice of the nature of the action as required by Civ.R. 8(A)." (Decision & Entry at 3.)

1 We note that Civ.R. 12(C) authorizes a party to file a motion for a judgment on the pleadings "[a]fter the 

pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial." (Emphasis added.) In this case, the 

pleadings had not been completed and, thus, appellant's motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed 

prematurely. See also Civ.R. 7; 8; and 12. The record indicates that summons was issued and proof of services 

was issued on December 24, 2020; that service failed certified mail on January 7, 2021; and that service 

completed certified mail on January 12, 2021. 
No. 21AP-578 3

{¶ 7} On October 21, 2021, appellant filed an "Objection to October 15, 2021, Order 

Request for Findings and an En Banc Review by another jurisdiction."

2 On November 8,

2021, appellant filed a "Notice of Appeal for an En Banc Review."

II. Assignments of Error

{¶ 8} Appellant appeals and assigns the following assignments of error for our 

review:3

ASSIGNMENT ERROR I. Did, the IG comply with ORC § 

121.42 and 121.44 Reports of investigations? Did the IG 

arbitrarily and willfully violate Article II of the Ohio 

Constitution, ORC §3.07 Misconduct in office - forfeiture,

ORC 2921.45 Interfering with civil rights and Public Law 96-

303, Code of Ethics for Govemment Service? The IG has three 

(3) complaints before them. No acknowledgment whether 

there was an OMISSION or NOT for documented complaints 

against 1.) Ohio Department of Administrative Services, 2.) 

Ohio Dental Board, the medical professional ethically 

admitted to and documented a medical injury; yet, the OIG 

alleged there was NO OMISSIONs and 3.) Ohio Department 

of Insurance. The trial court failed to impartially address the 

non-compliance nor review relevant exhibits before the OIG 

and Ohio Department of Administrative Services.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II. If, the IG willfully neglected 

their duties is the State required to provide representations at 

2 Civ.R. 52 states: "Findings of fact and conclusions of law required by this rule and by Civ.R. 41(B)(2) and 

Civ.R. 23(G)(3) are unnecessary upon all other motions including those pursuant to Civ.R. 12, Civ.R. 55 and 

Civ.R. 56." (Emphasis added.)

3 In addition to the assignments of error set forth in his merit brief and outlined above, appellant sets forth 

two additional assignments of error in his reply brief. Appellant avers: "Assignment Error 1. Appellant Byrd 

unambiguously requested the Appeal be placed on the Accelerated calendar due to many relevant supporting 

criteria, refer to Appellant Byrd's Docketing Statement. Assignment Error 2. Whether the Appeal was entered 

on the Accelerated calendar (R. 6, 15-day Response) or a Regular calendar (20-day Response); the Appellees' 

December 14, 2021, Brief was untimely to be discussed later." (Sic passim.) (Reply Brief at 3.) However, we 

decline to address these assignments of error. App.R. 16(A)(7) provides that assignments of error shall be 

argued in the merit brief of the appellant. App.R. 16(C) states that an "appellant may file a brief in reply to the 

brief of the appellee." (Emphasis added.) Reply briefs are only to be used to rebut arguments raised in an 

appellee's brief, therefore an appellant may not use a reply brief to raise new issues or assignments of error. 

Ostendorf v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2d Dist. No. 20257, 2004-Ohio-4520; State v. Wilson, 5th 

Dist. No. 13CA39, 2014-Ohio-41; Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. v. Gordon, 8th Dist. No. 98953, 2013-Ohio2095. See also State ex rel. Colvin v. Brunner, 120 Ohio St.3d 110, 2008-Ohio-5041, ¶ 61 ("neither relators 

nor respondents raised this issue in their initial briefs; relators are thus forbidden to raise this new argument 

in their reply brief").
No. 21AP-578 4

taxpayers' expenses? See, Appellant's January 27, 2021,

Objection to Motion to Dismiss, page 4.

ASSGNMENT OF ERROR III. Why isn't this matter in 

Default?

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV. The trail court's 

noncompliance to Appellant Byrd's, paid for, petition for an 

"Outside Independent Judge Review(s) Requested" Visiting

Judge a Prejudicial error?

(Sic passim.) We further construe appellant's brief as raising a fifth assignment of error—

assigning that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint. (See Appellant's Brief at 4-

5.)

III. Analysis

{¶ 9} As a preliminary matter, we begin by observing appellant's notation on the 

front of his brief "en banc review or outside review." At this time, the criteria for en banc 

review pursuant to App.R. 26(A)(2) has not been met. Therefore, we will not proceed en 

banc. Furthermore, appellant has set forth no reason to support his request for outside 

review. Nor has appellant indicated that he pursued the filing of affidavits of 

disqualification pursuant to R.C. 2501.13, 2701.03, S.Ct.Prac.R. 21.01 through 21.04. 

Therefore, judges of this court will review this case.

{¶ 10} In the first and second assignments of error, appellant addresses and asks 

this court to opine regarding the merits of his allegations against appellees and his 

allegations against the Department of Insurance, Department of Administrative Services,

and the Ohio Dental Board. As the trial court dismissed this case, and did not decide any 

questions involving the merits of the allegations, these assignments of error are not ripe for 

review and we decline to opine regarding the same in the first instance. 

{¶ 11} In the fourth assignment of error, appellant inquires why the trial court did 

not comply with his request for an outside or visiting judge. Appellant's complaint, motion 

for judgment on the pleadings, and response to appellees' motion dismiss do not indicate 

he pursued the filing of affidavits of disqualification pursuant to R.C. 2701.03 and S.Ct. 

Prac.R. 21.01 through 21.04. Accordingly, the fourth assignment of error is overruled. 
No. 21AP-578 5

{¶ 12} In the third assignment of error, appellant inquires "[w]hy isn't this matter 

in [d]efault?" Civ.R. 55(A) authorizes judgment by default "[w]hen a party against whom a 

judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided 

by these rules." Civ.R. 12(A)(1) requires the filing of an answer within 28 days after service 

of the summons and complaint upon a defendant. However, Civ.R. 12(B) states that a 

motion making any of the defenses outlined in Civ.R. 12(B), including Civ.R. 12(B)(6) 

failure to state a claim, shall be made before pleading if a further pleading is permitted. 

Civ.R. 12(A)(2) states that the service of a motion permitted under Civ.R. 12 "alters these 

periods of time" as outlined in Civ.R. 12(A)(2). Finally, we note the record indicates that 

summons was issued and proof of service certified mail receipt was sent on December 24,

2020; that notice of failure of certified mail service was filed on January 7, 2021; and that 

notice of complete certified mail service was filed on January 12, 2021. Accordingly, the 

third assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 13} In the fifth assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court erred in 

granting appellees' motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). A Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion 

to dismiss tests the sufficiency of the complaint. Bullard v. McDonald's, 10th Dist. No. 

20AP-374, 2021-Ohio-1505, ¶ 11, citing O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc.,

42 Ohio St.2d 242, 245 (1975). A court may dismiss a complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) 

only if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling the 

plaintiff to recovery. O'Brien at syllabus. The court must presume all factual allegations 

contained in the complaint to be true and must make all reasonable inferences in favor of 

the plaintiff. Bullard at ¶ 10. The court need not, however, accept as true any unsupported 

and conclusory legal propositions advanced in the complaint. Morrow v. Reminger & 

Reminger Co., L.P.A., 183 Ohio App.3d 40, 2009-Ohio-2665, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.). When 

reviewing a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal, this court's standard of review is de novo. Foreman 

v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 14AP-15, 2014-Ohio-2793, ¶ 9.

{¶ 14} Ohio is a notice pleading state. Pursuant to notice pleading, " '[appellant was] 

required to allege sufficient facts to give [appellees] notice of [his] claim.' " Wiltz v. 

Accountancy Bd. of Ohio, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-645, 2015-Ohio-2493, ¶ 13, quoting San 

Allen, Inc. v. Buehrer, 8th Dist. No. 99786, 2014-Ohio-2071, ¶ 84, referencing Thatcher v. 
No. 21AP-578 6

Lauffer Ravines, L.L.C., 10th Dist. No. 11AP-851, 2012-Ohio-6193, ¶ 43-48 ("Although 

claim was 'not spelled out in the complaint by explicit reference to the appropriate statutory 

sections,' " the case could nevertheless proceed on the theory that defendant violated 

various statutory provisions if the allegations in the complaint " 'provided fair notice to the 

defendants that the action could proceed on this theory.' "). " 'Notice pleading under Civ.R. 

8(A)(1) and (E) require that a claim concisely set forth only those operative facts sufficient 

to give "fair notice of the nature of the action." ' " Wiltz at ¶ 13, quoting Montgomery v. 

Ohio State Univ., 10th Dist. No. 11AP-1024, 2012-Ohio-5489, ¶ 20, quoting Ford v. Brooks,

10th Dist. No. 11AP-664, 2012-Ohio-943, ¶ 13.

{¶ 15} From his complaint, it appears appellant is alleging that the Ohio Inspector 

General:(1) committed misconduct in office,(2) interfered with civil rights, and (3) violated 

Public Law 96-303, by failing to comply with his duties pursuant to R.C. 121.42 and 121.44. 

Specifically, appellant alleges that:

The Office has knowingly and willfully violated the Ohio 

Constitution, there must be penalties pursuant to Ohio 

Revised Code (ORC) 3.07 Misconduct in office – forfeiture,

ORC 2921.45 Interfering with civil rights and Public Law 96-

303, Code of Ethics for Government Service.

* * *

There are several Constitutional legal and valid complaints 

before the Ohio's Inspector General (IG), who has arbitrarily 

and capriciously refused to file and acknowledge, in 

particular, our March 23 and August 12, 2020 complaints 

against the Ohio Department of Insurance and a January 21,

2020 complaint against the Ohio Department of 

Administrative Services.

(Sic passim.) (Compl. at 1-3.) 

{¶ 16} Further, appellant appears to request "reparations," punitive damages 

pursuant to R.C. 2315.21, and damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1985. (See Compl. at 10-11.) 

{¶ 17} In addition, the complaint presents many "issues for review" and "questions"

regarding the merits of: (1) the allegations against the Ohio Inspector General, and (2) the 

merits of the complaints appellant allegedly filed with the Ohio Inspector General against 

the Department of Insurance and the Department of Administrative Services. However,
No. 21AP-578 7

our review today is limited to whether appellant failed to state a claim and we will not 

address the merits, issues, and questions which appellant has interspersed within his 

complaint. 

{¶ 18} We find the trial court did not err in dismissing for failure to state a claim the 

claim that the Inspector General violated Ohio's Public Law 96-303 as it is not clear to 

which law appellant is referring cited or titled in this manner. Therefore, appellant failed 

to state a claim.

{¶ 19} We also find the trial court did not err in dismissing for failure to state a claim 

the broad allegation that the Inspector General violated the Constitution. Appellant refers 

to "Article II" and "Article II.38." As best we can decipher, it appears appellant is suggesting 

an impeachment process for the public officials referred to in the complaint for reasons that 

they allegedly violated R.C. 3.07, 2921.44, 2921.45, and 2921.11. Ohio Constitution, 

Article II, Section 38 states:

Laws shall be passed providing for the prompt removal from 

office, upon complaint and hearing, of all officers, including 

state officers, judges and members of the general assembly,

for any misconduct involving moral turpitude or for other 

cause provided by law; and this method of removal shall be in 

addition to impeachment or other method of removal 

authorized by the constitution.

This provision directs Ohio's General Assembly to pass laws providing for the prompt 

removal of office of the officers enumerated therein. Therefore, appellant failed to state a 

claim. We also note that appellant failed to state a claim under R.C. 2921.11 (perjury) and 

2921.44 (dereliction of duty). We have observed that "Ohio law does not recognize a private 

cause of action for 'dereliction of duty.' " (Citation omitted.) Boddie v. Landers, 10th Dist. 

No. 15AP-962, 2016-Ohio-1410, ¶ 10. The perjury claim fails for much the same reason, 

too, among others. See Whelan v. Vanderwist of Cincinnati, Inc., 11th Dist. No. 2010-G2999, 2011-Ohio-6844, ¶ 27, citing Costell, Admr. v. Toledo Hosp., 38 Ohio St.3d 221, 223-

24 (1988).

{¶ 20} We also find the trial court did not err in dismissing for failure to state a claim 

the allegation that the Inspector General violated R.C. 3.07. R.C. 3.07 states: 
No. 21AP-578 8

Any person holding office in this state, or in any municipal 

corporation, county, or subdivision thereof, coming within the 

official classification in Section 38 of Article II, Ohio 

Constitution, who willfully and flagrantly exercises authority 

or power not authorized by law, refuses or willfully neglects to 

enforce the law or to perform any official duty imposed upon 

him by law, or is guilty of gross neglect of duty, gross 

immorality, drunkenness, misfeasance, malfeasance, or 

nonfeasance is guilty of misconduct in office. Upon complaint 

and hearing in the manner provided for in sections 3.07 to 

3.10, inclusive, of the Revised Code, such person shall have 

judgment of forfeiture of said office with all its emoluments 

entered thereon against him, creating thereby in said office a 

vacancy to be filled as prescribed by law. The proceedings 

provided for in such sections are in addition to impeachment 

and other methods of removal authorized by law, and such 

sections do not divest the governor or any other authority of 

the jurisdiction given in removal proceedings.

(Emphasis added.) R.C. 3.07 specifically states that the procedures set forth in R.C. 3.07 

through 3.10 must be followed. There is no indication in the complaint that the procedures 

were followed. Therefore, appellant failed to state a claim. 

{¶ 21} Finally, we find the trial court did not err in dismissing for failure to state a 

claim the allegation that appellees violated R.C. 2921.45, 42 U.S.C. 1985, and the 

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. R.C. 2921.45 states: 

(A) No public servant, under color of the public servant's

office, employment, or authority, shall knowingly deprive, or 

conspire or attempt to deprive any person of a constitutional 

or statutory right.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of interfering with 

civil rights, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

{¶ 22} 42 U.S.C. 1985 states: 

(1) Preventing officer from performing duties. If two or more 

persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, 

intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding 

any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United 

States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by 

like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, 

district or place, where his duties as an officer are required to 
No. 21AP-578 9

be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on 

account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or 

while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his 

property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in 

the discharge of his official duties;

(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror. 

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to 

deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in 

any court of the United States from attending such court, or 

from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, 

and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person 

or property on account of his having so attended or testified, 

or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any 

grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror 

in his person or property on account of any verdict, 

presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of 

his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons 

conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, 

or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any 

State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal 

protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for 

lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any 

person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;

(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges. If two or more 

persons in any State or Territory conspire, or go in disguise on 

the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of 

depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of 

persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal 

privileges and immunities under the laws, or for the purpose 

of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any 

State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within 

such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if 

two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, 

intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to 

vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, 

toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified 

person as an elector for President or Vice-President, or as a 

member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any 

citizen in person or property on account of such support or 

advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if 

one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, 

any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, 

whereby another is injured in his person or property, or 
No. 21AP-578 10

deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a 

citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived 

may have an action for the recovery of damages, occasioned 

by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the 

conspirators.

{¶ 23} The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Section 1 states: 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and 

subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United 

States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall 

make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or 

immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State 

deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due 

process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction 

the equal protection of the laws.

{¶ 24} Appellant broadly states that:

[He] submits this complaint due to the State's violation of 

one's guaranteed rights pursuant to the U.S. and Ohio's

Constitutions. State governments create state courts through 

the enactment of statutes or by constitutional provisions for 

the purpose of enforcing state law. Public officials have 

specific obligations to taxpayers; therefore, their actions of a 

few have sullied the confidence of taxpayers. We are 

submitting this corroborated and legal complaint due to the 

Ohio Inspector General (OIG), Director Department of 

Administrative Services (DAS) and other public officials'

failure to execute pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 3.07 

Misconduct in office – forfeiture and Article II of the Ohio 

Constitution as late as November 18, 2020. 

(Sic passim.) (Compl. at 1.) There is no indication in the complaint which specific 

constitutional or statutory rights appellant has allegedly been deprived of and the 

complaint does not set forth operative facts sufficient to discern and for appellees to be 

placed on notice of the same.4 Therefore, appellant failed to state a claim. 

{¶ 25} Accordingly, the fifth assignment of error is overruled. 

4 We note appellant refers to R.C. 121.42 and 121.44; however, these statutes enumerate the duties of appellee 

Ohio Inspector General, not the rights of appellant. 
No. 21AP-578 11

IV. Conclusion

{¶ 26} For the reasons stated above, we find appellant's first and second 

assignments of error not ripe for review and we decline to address them. We overrule 

appellant's third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error. Accordingly, the judgment of the 

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. 

DORRIAN, JAMISON, and NELSON, JJ., concur.

Nelson, J., retired, formerly of the Tenth Appellate District, 

Assigned to active duty under authority of the Ohio 

Constitution, Article IV, Section 6(C).