[Cite as Davis v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2012-Ohio-5278.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us 

LEROY DAVIS 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2012-04561-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

ENTRY OF DISMISSAL

{¶1} On June 6, 2012, plaintiff, Leroy Davis, filed a complaint against 

defendant, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“DRC”), asserting that every 

month since August 2010, defendant wrongfully withdrew funds from his inmate account 

to pay court costs in a Municipal Court. Plaintiff contends funds cannot be withdrawn to 

pay Municipal Court costs. 

{¶2} On August 14, 2012, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s 

complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1), lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On August 21 

and 22, 2012, plaintiff filed motions contra to defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

{¶3} Since this particular action is for the recovery of an alleged wrongful 

collection, the claim is grounded solely in equity. Ohio Hosp. Assn. v. Ohio Dept. of 

Human Servs., 62 Ohio St. 3d 97, 579 N.E. 2d 695 (1991). “The reimbursement of 

monies withheld pursuant to an invalid administrative rule is equitable relief, not money 

damages . . .” Ohio Hosp. Assn. at 105. “Thus, for restitution to lie in equity, the action 

generally must seek not to impose liability on the defendant, but to restore to the plaintiff 
Case No. 2012-04561-AD - 2 - ENTRY

particular funds or property in the defendant’s possession.” Great-West Life & Annuity 

Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 214, 122 S. Ct. 708, 151 L. Ed. 635 (2002). 

{¶4} “Suit that seeks return of specific funds wrongfully collected or held by the 

state is brought in equity.” Santos v. Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, 101 Ohio 

St. 3d 74, 2004-Ohio-28, 801 N.E. 2d 441, at paragraph one of the syllabus. 

{¶5} R.C. 2743.03(A)(1) and (2) state: 

{¶6} “(A)(1) There is hereby created a court of claims. The court of claims is a 

court of record and has 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, 

exclusive jurisdiction of the causes of action of all parties in civil actions that are 

removed to the court of claims, and jurisdiction to hear appeals from the decisions of the 

court of claims commissioners. The court shall have full equity powers in all actions 

within its jurisdiction and may entertain and determine all counterclaims, cross-claims, 

and third-party claims. 

{¶7} “(2) If the claimant in a civil action as described in division (A)(1) of this 

section also files a claim for a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, or other equitable 

relief against the state that arises out of the same circumstances that gave rise to the 

civil action described in division (A)(1) of this section, the court of claims has exclusive, 

original jurisdiction to hear and determine that claim in that civil action. This division 

does not affect, and shall not be construed as affecting, the original jurisdiction of 

another court of this state to hear and determine a civil action in which the sole relief 

that the claimant seeks against the state is a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, or 

other equitable relief.” 

{¶8} Additionally, R.C. 2743.10(A) states in pertinent part: 

{¶9} “Civil actions against the state for ten thousand dollars or less shall be 

determined administratively by the clerk of the court of claims . . .” R.C. 2743.10 does 

not confer equity jurisdiction at the Administrative Determination level of this court. 
Case No. 2012-04561-AD - 3 - ENTRY

Administrative Determination actions are solely for money damages. Equity jurisdiction 

in matters involving the state are reserved for judicial review. Although plaintiff, in the 

instant claim, is seeking to recover funds he asserted were wrongfully deducted, the 

funds sought for recovery represent a claim for equitable relief and not money 

damages. Consequently, this court at the Administrative Determination level has no 

jurisdiction over claims grounded in equity based on the wrongful collection of funds 

from an inmate. 

{¶10} In essence the jurisdiction of the entire Court of Claims is based upon the 

type of relief sought, either money damages or equity. In Parsons v. Ohio Bur. of 

Workers’ Compensation, 10th Dist. No. 03AP-772, 2004-Ohio-4552, the 10th District 

Court of Appeals further addressed the issue of jurisdiction on equitable relief claims 

stating: “the Court of Claims’ jurisdiction is limited, in pertinent part, only to civil actions 

against the state permitted by the waiver of immunity contained within R.C. 2743.02. 

Thus, if the state consented to suit upon a claim prior to the enactment of the waiver 

contained in R.C. 2743.02, then the Court of Claims’ jurisdiction does not extend to that 

claim.” Parsons, ¶12. Concomitantly, the court cannot exercise jurisdiction over 

plaintiff’s equitable action. See Johnson v. Trumbull Corr. Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2004-

08375-AD, jud. aff. (5-5-05), 2005-Ohio-1241, Patterson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & 

Corr., Ct. of Cl. No. 2010-01468-AD, 2010-Ohio-6619. 

{¶11} IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

{¶12} Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED; 

{¶13} Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED; 

{¶14} The court shall absorb the court costs of this case. 

 ________________________________ 
Case No. 2012-04561-AD - 4 - ENTRY

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 

Entry cc: 

Leroy Davis, #628-163 Stephen Young 

15802 State Route 104 North Department of Rehabilitation 

Chillicothe, Ohio 45601 and Correction 

 770 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43222 

DRB/laa 

Filed 10/31/12 

sent to S.C. Reporter 11/14/12