[Cite as McCain v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2020-Ohio-3946.]

{¶1} On April 22, 2020, defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings 

pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C). On June 3, 2020, plaintiff filed a response. On June 10, 

2020, defendant filed a reply. For the reasons discussed below, defendant’s motion 

shall be granted. 

Standard of Review 

Civ.R. 12(C) may be employed by a defendant as a vehicle for raising the 

several defenses contained in Civ.R. 12(B) after the close of the 

pleadings. * * * Pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C), the pleadings must be construed 

liberally and in a light most favorable to the party against whom the motion 

is made along with the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. * * * A 

Civ.R. 12(C) motion presents only questions of law, and it may be granted 

only when no material factual issues exist, and the movant is entitled to a 

judgment as a matter of law. 

Burnside v. Leimbach, 71 Ohio App.3d 399, 402-403, (10th Dist.1991). To dismiss a 

complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 

Civ.R. 12(B)(6), it must appear beyond doubt from the complaint that plaintiff can prove 

no set of facts entitling her to recovery. O’Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, 

Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975), syllabus. Dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to 

file the action within the applicable statute of limitations is proper only when the face of 

EDDIE W. MCCAIN 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF 

REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant

Case No. 2019-00828JD 

Judge Patrick McGrath 

Magistrate Gary Peterson 

ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS 
Case No. 2019-00828JD -2- ENTRY 

the complaint conclusively shows that the action is time barred. Leichliter v. Natl. City 

Bank, 134 Ohio App.3d 26 (10th Dist.1999). 

Factual and Procedural Background 

{¶2} According to the amended complaint,1 on June 24, 2017, one or more of 

defendant’s agents wrote a conduct report falsely accusing plaintiff of stabbing another 

inmate. (Amended Complaint, p. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that the false conduct report 

caused the Adult Parole Authority (APA) to deny him parole. Id., at p. 2. Plaintiff avers 

that, because of the allegations in the false conduct report, his next parole hearing will 

not be held for seven years. Id. Plaintiff attached several exhibits to his amended 

complaint wherein several individuals attest in affidavits that plaintiff did not stab 

another inmate. Plaintiff requests $25,000.00 in damages. Id. 

{¶3} Defendant previously moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction. The court agreed, in part, and on April 13, 2020, dismissed 

plaintiff’s constitutional claims, claims challenging the decision of the APA, and claims 

appealing the decision by the Rules Infraction Board. The motion to dismiss was 

denied, in part, because the court also determined that plaintiff arguably raised a claim 

for defamation. Thereafter, on April 22, 2020, defendant filed an answer and a motion 

for judgment on the pleadings. On June 3, 2020, plaintiff filed his response with 

corresponding exhibits and attachments. However, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C), the court, 

“may only consider the statements contained in the pleadings and may not consider any 

evidentiary materials.” Workman v. Franklin County, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 00AP-1449, 

2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 3818, 6 (Aug. 28, 2001) quoting Moore v. Rickenbacker, 10th 

Dist. Franklin No. 00AP-1259, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 1973, 3 (May 3, 2001). 

 1Plaintiff filed his original complaint on July 25, 2019, and his amended complaint on August 19, 

2019. It is well-settled that, “[a]n amended complaint supplants the original complaint, so the allegations 

in an amended complaint supersede those in the original complaint.” DSS Servs., LLC v. Eitel’s Towing, 

LLC, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 18AP-567, 2019-Ohio-3158, ¶ 6. Accordingly, the court will only consider 

plaintiff’s August 19, 2019 amended complaint.
Case No. 2019-00828JD -3- ENTRY 

Consequently, the court cannot consider the attachments and exhibits filed with 

plaintiff’s response. 

{¶4} As an initial matter, plaintiff argues that defendant’s motion for judgment on 

the pleadings is improperly before the court because the certificate of service indicates 

that the motion was served one day prior to defendant’s answer. Indeed, defendant’s 

certificate of service indicates that the motion for judgment on the pleadings was served 

on April 23, 2020, one day prior to service of defendant’s answer.2 Nevertheless, both 

the motion for judgment on the pleadings and the answer were simultaneously filed with 

the court on April 22, 2020. Accordingly, defendant properly filed both an answer and a 

motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

{¶5} Even if defendant filed a premature motion for judgment on the pleadings, 

the standard of review for both a Civ.R 12(B)(6) motion and a Civ.R.12(C) motion is the 

same. Wilkins v. Harrisburg, 10th Dist. Franklin No.12AP-1046, 2013-Ohio-2751, ¶ 7. 

Accordingly, plaintiff is not prejudiced by consideration of a premature Civ.R. 12(C) 

motion if dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) is otherwise appropriate. Id. 

Law and Analysis 

{¶6} In its motion for judgment on the pleadings, defendant argues that plaintiff’s 

claim for defamation is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. R.C. 2743.16(A) 

provides, in relevant part, that “civil actions against the state * * * shall be commenced 

no later than two years after the date of the accrual of the cause of action or within any 

shorter period that is applicable to similar suits between private parties.” (Emphasis 

added.) Additionally, R.C. 2305.11(A) provides, “[a]n action for libel, slander, malicious 

prosecution, or false imprisonment * * * shall be commenced within one year after the 

cause of action accrued * * *.” “Ohio has held that the statute of limitations for 

 2The certificate of service accompanying defendant’s answer indicates that it was served upon 

plaintiff on April 24, 2020. 
Case No. 2019-00828JD -4- ENTRY 

defamation, be it libel or slander, begins to run at the time words are written or spoken, 

not when the plaintiff became aware of them.” Singh v. ABA Publ. ABA, 10th Dist. 

Franklin No. 02AP-1125, 2003-Ohio-2314, ¶ 22. 

{¶7} Accepting the allegations of the amended complaint as true, plaintiff’s claim 

accrued no later than June 24, 2017, the date upon which defendant’s agents authored 

the false conduct report. Plaintiff filed his original complaint on July 25, 2019, more than 

one year after his claim accrued. In his response, plaintiff argues that his injury 

occurred at his parole hearing in 2019, thus making his defamation claim timely. 

However, as previously stated, the statute of limitations for defamation begins to run at 

the time the words are written or spoken, not when the plaintiff became aware of them 

or suffered injury. Singh at ¶ 22-23. Furthermore, Ohio courts have declined to apply 

the discovery rule to actions for defamation. Id. Accordingly, plaintiff’s defamation 

claim is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. 

Conclusion 

{¶8} Making all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, the amended complaint 

conclusively shows that his claim for defamation is barred by the one-year statute of 

limitations. Therefore, defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED 

and judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. All previously scheduled events are 

VACATED. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all 

parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. 

 

 PATRICK M. MCGRATH 

Judge 

Filed June 24, 2020 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 8/4/20