Court Opinion

ID: 9476554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:58:39.20107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:22.765766
License: Public Domain

BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
In my view, absent another vote on whether to grant a rehearing en banc, this dispute must be resolved on the merits. I disagree with the interpretation of Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure found in the order issued in Clark v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 684 F.2d 1208, 1226 (6th Cir.1982), however until there is a new decision by the full court, we are bound by our precedent.
I disagree with the majority on the merits. The state statute involved, Ohio Revised Code § 2743.02(A)(1), states that a civil action filed in the Court of Claims waives any other cause of action against a state officer or employee based on the same act or omission. If read literally I think the statute improperly restricts the jurisdiction of a federal court to entertain a cause of action under section 1983. Consequently, it is my opinion that the statute must be construed as waiving state created claims only, not federally created causes of action such as Leaman’s. In any event, *969Leaman cannot be said to have waived access to federal court unless it is clear she was aware that she had two avenues available for raising her section 1983 claim. The record before us is devoid of any information which would assist in making a valid decision on this point.
I would reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case for further proceedings.