[Cite as Dudas v. Lucci , 2017-Ohio-7784.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN )

RONALD A. DUDAS Appellant

v. JUDGE EUGENE LUCCI Appellee C.A. No. 17CA011085

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 16CV189175

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: September 25, 2017

TEODOSIO, Judge. {¶1} Ronald A. Dudas appeals the order of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion for relief from judgment. We affirm.

I. {¶2} Ronald A. Dudas filed his original complaint against Judge Eugene Lucci in April 2016, with an amended complain t being filed on May 31, 2016. Th e amended complaint alleged the abuse of civil rights, the abuse of power, and a violation of the First Amendment, all stemming from an underlying criminal proceedin g. On August 10, 2016, the trial court, upon the motion of Judge Lucci, dismissed Mr. Dudas’ am ended complaint. The trial court based its ruling on its analysis of Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), finding that unless Mr. Dudas could “allege and prove termination of the crim inal proceedings in his favor, his allegations based upon Judge Lucci’s decisions in [his] criminal case [were] not cognizable claims.” The trial court further found that Judge Lucci was “i mmune from liability for all acts alleged in the2

Amended Complaint.” Finally, the trial c ourt found that Mr. Duda s’ amended complaint “fail[ed] to state claims based upon the precedent set forth in Agg v. Flanagan and Jones v.

White .” (Citations omitted.) See Agg v. Flanagan , 855 F.2d 336 (6th Cir.1988); Jones v. White , 9th Dist. Summit No. 18109, 1997 WL 669737 (Oct. 15, 1997). {¶3} Mr. Dudas appealed the dismissal of his cas e to this Court, and we dismissed his appeal for failing to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) , which requires a motion and affidavit that

contain a statement that sets fort h the balance in the inmate account of the inmate for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier. Dudas v. Lucci , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 16CA011008 (Sept. 28, 2016). Mr. Dudas subs equently filed a motion for relief from judgment with the trial court, which was denied on January 4, 2017. Mr. Dudas now appeals, raising one assignment of error.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO GRANT RELIEF FROM THE JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE, UPON SHOWING OF SUBSTANTIVE REASONS TO DO SO. {¶4} Mr. Dudas argues the trial court erred in failing to grant relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). We disagree. {¶5} An appellate court must affirm a trial c ourt’s denial of a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment absent an abuse of discretion. Strack v. Pelton , 70 Ohio St.3d 172, 174 (1994). An abuse of discretion means more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the trial court’s attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore , 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). When applying the a buse of discretion standard, a reviewing court3

is precluded from simply substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court. Pons v. Ohio

State Med. Bd. , 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621 (1993). {¶6} “Civ.R. 60(B) permits a party to obtain relief from judgment on several bases such as mistake, excusable neglect, newly discov ered evidence, fraud, satisfaction of judgment, and other reasons justifying relief.” Naples v. Naples , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 08CA009420, 2009- Ohio-427, at ¶ 9. “[N]o issue that can be raised on appeal can be used as a basis for Civ. R. 60(B) relief.” Roach v. Roach , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 01CA007861, 2001 WL 1379441, *3 (Nov. 7, 2001). “A party may not use a Civ.R . 60(B) motion as a substitute for a timely appeal.” Doe v. Trumbull Cty. Children Servs. Bd. , 28 Ohio St.3d 128 (1986), paragraph two of the syllabus. “[A] Civ.R. 60(B) motion does not provide for the reconsideration of a judgment and cannot be employed to challenge the lega l correctness of a trial court’s decision.” Naples at ¶ 9. {¶7} In his assignment of error, Mr. Dudas pr esents three issues for our review: (1) “[w]hether the trial court erred in refusing to grant relief from the judgment dismissing the case under an erroneous [ Heck v. Humphrey ] analysis * * *”; “[w]hether the trial court erred [in finding] that ministerial acts by a judge are protected under immunity”; and whether the “[c]omplaint set forth su fficient facts which stated a claim upon which relief can be granted * * *.” Each issue presented by Mr. Dudas is a refuta tion of the merits of the trial court’s August 10, 2016, dismissal of his amended complaint. Thus, th e issues presented in his assignment of error would have been appropriate in Mr. Dudas’ first appeal, but we re forfeited upon our dismissal of that appeal on September 28, 2016. See Majnaric v. Majnaric , 9th Dist. Summit No. 8305, 1977 WL 198804, *2 (Mar. 16, 1977). As we have previous ly stated, no issue that can be raised on appeal can be used as a basis for Civ. R. 60(B) relief. See Roach at *3. Likewise, “a Civ.R.4

60(B) motion does not provide for the reconsidera tion of a judgment and cannot be employed to challenge the legal correctness of a trial court’s decision.” Naples at ¶ 9. We conclude the trial

court did not abuse its discreti on in denying relief from judgment . Accordingly, Mr. Dudas’ assignment of error is overruled.

III. {¶8} Mr. Dudas’ assignment of error is overru led. The judgment of the Lorain County

Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry th is judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. Immediately upon the filing hereof, this docum ent shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22 (C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. Costs taxed to Appellant.

THOMAS A. TEODOSIO FOR THE COURT5

HENSAL, P. J. CALLAHAN, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES: RONALD A. DUDAS, pro se, Appellant. KIMBERLY VANOVER RILEY, Attorney at Law, for Appellee. JOHN D. WAGNER, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.