[Cite as Gipson v. Hamilton Cty. Clerk of Courts , 2024

- Ohio

- 848.]


### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

TIMOTHY GIPSON , Plaintiff

- Appell ant , and JULIE GIPSON, Plaintiff,

vs.
HAMILTON COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS , Defendant

- Appellee

. :

:

:

:

:

:

:

: APPEAL NO. C

- 230364 TRIAL NO. A

- 2300725

O P I N I O N

.

Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judgment Appealed From Is : Affirmed Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: March 8, 2024

Timothy Gipson , pro se, Melissa A. Powers , Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and James S. Sayre , Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Defendant

- Appellee

.O HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS

2 Z AYAS , Judge. 

### {¶1} Plaintiff

- appellant Timothy Gipson (“Gi p son”) appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his complaint . He argues
that the trial cour t erred in dismiss ing the complaint before providing him with notice
of its intent to dismiss

. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial

court.
I. Factual and Procedural History 

### {¶2} On February 21, 2023, Timothy and Julie Gipson (“plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against defe ndant

- appellee Hamilton County Clerk of Courts ( “the clerk”)

. The complaint asserted that the plaintiffs were suing the clerk for “Tort

- C360,” pursuant to R.C. 2921.01 to 2921.45 . In essence, the allegations in the complaint

appear to allege that the clerk failed to properly enter certain information

— case numbers and documentary evidence

— into the system and, as a result, a certain inmate was released from custody early, allowing the inmate to continue his “torture” of plaintiffs as victims. The complaint seeks $40 million for various alleged damages. 

### {¶3} On April 19, 2023, the clerk filed a motion for leave to file a motion to dismiss, asserting good cause for the late filing. The motion for leave included the complete motion to dismiss

— seeking dismissal for failure to state a claim

— and a certificate of service indicating that the motion was served on the plaintiffs via regular mail at the address listed in the complaint

. In response , plaintiffs filed a “motion to stay connected ,” asserting arguments in opposition to the clerk’s motion for leave and
in su pport of the complaint. 

### {¶4} On May 10, 2023, the trial court entered an order granting the motion for leave and deeming the motion to dismiss filed. The order indicated that the plaintiffs would have until May 29 to file a response to the motion to dismiss. The reO HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS

3 is no indication in the docket that this order was ever served on the parties. After no

response was subsequently filed, t he trial court granted the motion to dismiss on June

14 , finding that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief where the statutes cited in the complaint are criminal stat ut es that do not confer any private right of action. Gipson now appeals.
II. Law and Analysis 

### {¶5} This court reviews a trial court’s dismissal of a complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) de novo. Napier v. TriHealth, Inc. , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C

- 220009, 2022
- Ohio

- 3311, ¶ 4. 

### {¶6} T he complaint asserts that a cause of action exists against the clerk

“ pursuant to R.C. 2921.01 to 2921.45. ” Yet , based on a review of the specified statutes and the facts asserted in the complaint, this court fails to see any cognizable cause of action arising from the complaint. 1 

### {¶7} Nevertheless , Gi p son points to Civ.R. 41(B)(1) and argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint without providing notice of the trial court’s
intent to dismiss the ca u se. The clerk counters that the motion to dismiss was filed in writing and served on the plaintiffs. 

### {¶8} We acknowledge that the trial court’s entry granting the clerk’s motion for leave to file the motion to dismiss was never served on the parties. We also acknowledge the trial court’s dismissal was at the request of the clerk in this case. Nevertheless, we hold that any potential error arising from lack of notice of the court’s entry was harmless where the trial court would have been permitted to sua sponte

1 We note that, although R.C. 2921.03(C) and 2921.13(G)

— two statutes within the range specified by the plaintiffs

— do allow for general civil liability for a violation, neither statute is applicable to the instant case based on the facts asserted in the complaint.O HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS

4 dismiss the complaint

— without notice

— where it is obvious that the plaintiffs cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint. Borthwick v. Dept. of Bldgs. & Inspections , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C

- 210315, 2022
- Ohio

- 1335, ¶ 9 , quoting Corrado
v. Lowe , 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2014

- G

- 3239, 2015
- Ohio

- 19 93, ¶ 22 (stating an exception to the general notice requirement , which allows a trial court to dismiss a complaint sua sponte and without notice “ ‘ “when the complaint is frivolous or the claimant obviously cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint.” ’ ” ). Accordingly, we must overrule the assignment of error

. I II

. Conclusion 

### {¶9} Having overruled the sole assignment of error, we affirm the judgment
of the trial court. Judgment affirmed

.
B OCK , P.J., and K INSLEY , J. , concur. Please note:
The c ourt has recorded its own entry this date.