Cook v. Trostel et al

Filing 83

ORDER denying 29 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 30 Plaintiffs Accelerated Calendar Request for Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunction Pursuant to Rule 65.1; denying 31 Plaintiffs Motion for Declaratory Judgment; denying 49 Motion for Injunctive Relief; granting in part and denying in part 55 Motions to Dismiss; denying 68 Plaintiffs Notice to the Court that Defendants are Causing Further Injury/Request for a Hearing on Plaintif fs Unheard Injunctive Relief Motion; adopting and affirming 72 Report and Recommendation; granting in part and denying in part 27 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Edmund A. Sargus on 8/30/2024. (cmw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JOSHUA COOK,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:23-cv-2314
JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

v.
KATIE TROSTEL, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER

Plaintiff, Joshua Cook, an inmate at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution, brings this
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 3.) Ms. Cook 1 is proceeding without
counsel. (Id.) Ms. Cook alleges that Defendants violated her Eighth Amendment rights by acting
with deliberate indifference to her safety and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment by enforcing the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections
(“ODRC”) Policy 67-MNH-12 that requires mandatory sex offender programing. (ECF No. 48.)
This matter is before the Court on the Order and Report and Recommendation issued by the
Magistrate Judge on July 12, 2024. (Order and R&R, ECF No. 72.) The Order and R&R
addressed several pending motions (see ECF Nos. 32, 41, 48, 50, 66) and offered
recommendations on the disposition of the remaining motions before the Court (ECF Nos. 27,
29, 30, 31, 49, 55, 68).
I.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

First, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 48) and then conducted a re-screening of the Amended Complaint pursuant

1

Plaintiff, a transgendered inmate, previously moved the Court to use female pronouns when
referring to her. (ECF No. 24.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s request. (ECF No. 26.)
1

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (ECF No. 72, PageID 690–91.) After conducting the initial rescreening of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the Magistrate Judge made several
recommendations based on a review of that Complaint.
The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s claims for damages against
Defendants in their official capacities be dismissed because the State of Ohio did not waive its
Eleventh Amendment immunity and accordingly such claims against state employees for
monetary relief are barred. (Id. at PageID 691–92.) But the Magistrate Judge recommended that
Plaintiff be permitted to proceed on her remaining claims. (Id.) The Magistrate Judge also
recommended that Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief against Defendants Edward Shutek and
Joshua Neff be dismissed because any claim against each Defendant arises from past conduct
and does not seek prospective relief from the allegedly unconstitutional policy mandates of 67MNH-12. (ECF No. 72, PageID 693.)
II.

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss

Next, the Magistrate Judge reviewed Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 27, 55)
and recommended that the Motions be granted, in part, as it relates to Plaintiff’s claims for
damages against Defendants in their individual capacities and denied in part as to Plaintiff’s
claims for injunctive relief against Defendants Katherine Trostel, Kelly Storm, Corby Free, and
Annette Chambers-Smith in their official capacities. (ECF No. 72, PageID 702, 705.) In other
words, the recommendation is that only Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief against Defendants
Trostel, Storm, Free, and Chambers-Smith in their official capacities should proceed.
III.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

The Magistrate Judge also recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 29) be denied for failing to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56. (ECF No. 72, PageID 703, 705.) Because Plaintiff failed to address the
2

preliminary injunction standard, the Magistrate Judge also recommended that Plaintiff’s
Accelerated Calendar Request for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary
Injunction Pursuant to Rule 65.1 (ECF No. 30); Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 49); and
Notice to the Court that Defendants are Causing Further Injury/Request for a Hearing on
Plaintiff’s Unheard Injunctive Relief Motion (ECF No. 68) be denied. (ECF No. 72, PageID
703.) Finally, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Declaratory
Judgment (ECF No. 31) be denied because a party may not make a motion for declaratory relief
but must bring an action for declaratory judgment. (ECF No. 72, PageID 704 (citation omitted)).
IV.

Analysis

Ms. Cook timely filed an Objection to the Order and R&R (ECF No. 80), and Defendants
replied to Ms. Cook’s Objection (ECF No. 81). When a party objects within the allotted time to a
report and recommendation, the Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of
the report or specified proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is made.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
After a de novo review, this Court agrees with and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Order
and R&R. Beyond restating her claims that Defendants have shown a deliberate indifference to
her safety and that ODRC Policy 67-MNH-12 is discriminatory, Ms. Cook only objects to the
Magistrate Judge’s application of the Leaman doctrine. (See ECF No. 80, PageID 726.) Ms.
Cook argues that the Leaman doctrine should only apply to preclude her federal cause of action
if her claims were litigated to a final judgment in the Ohio Court of Claims. (ECF No. 80,
PageID 726–28.) Because she dismissed her Court of Claims complaint before that court ruled

3

on the merits of her cause of action, she argues the Magistrate Judge erred in applying the
Leaman doctrine. (Id.)
But the Magistrate Judge addressed the fact that Ms. Cook “withdrew” or dismissed her
Court of Claims complaint in the Order and R&R. (ECF No. 72, PageID 699–700.) There, the
Magistrate Judge explained that “whether Plaintiff’s claims against the ODRC survived postfiling is immaterial—it is the act of bringing a claim in the Court of Claims, regardless of its
success, that triggers the Leaman doctrine’s complete waiver.” (ECF No. 72, PageID 699; citing
Thomson v. Harmony, 65 F.3d 1314, 1319 (6th Cir. 1995); Thomas v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. &
Corr., 36 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1008 n.3 (S.D. Ohio 1999).)
The Leaman doctrine, as the Magistrate Judge explained, recognizes that in some cases a
plaintiff waives the right to bring claims against state employees by suing in the Ohio Court of
Claims. (ECF No. 72, PageID 694; Leaman v. Ohio Dep’t of Mental Retardation & Dev.
Disabilities, 825 F.2d 946 (6th Cir. 1987) (en banc).) The Ohio legislature intended for the
waiver derived from Ohio Revised Code § 2743.02 to operate as a “quid pro quo” – “the state
consents to be sued [in the Court of Claims] in exchange for a plaintiff’s waiver of claims against
the state’s employees.” (Id. PageID 697; citing Harris v. Sowers, No. 2:16-cv-888, 2022 WL
1637564, at *2 (S.D. Ohio May 24, 2022); Plinton v. Cty. of Summit, 540 F.3d 459, 463 (6th Cir.
2008).)
The Court adopts this analysis. Ms. Cook filed a complaint in the Ohio Court of Claims
on August 25, 2022 alleging similar constitutional violations and seeking the same relief as her
federal cause of action. (ECF No. 72, PageID 702.) Because the act of bringing a claim in the
Court of Claims triggers the Leaman’s doctrine waiver, Ms. Cook waived her right to pursue a
claim for damages against Defendants in federal court. Ms. Cook raises no other objection to the
recommendations in the Magistrate Judge’s Order and R&R. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Objection
4

is OVERRULED and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part as it relates to
these claims.
V.

Conclusion

The Court has therefore made a de novo review of this record as required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 638(b) and Rule 72(b). Upon said review, Plaintiff’s Objection is OVERRULED. (ECF No.
80.) The Order and Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. (ECF No.
72.) Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacities and
Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief as to Defendants Edward Shutek and Joshua Neff are
DISMISSED. Plaintiff may proceed on her remaining claims. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss
(ECF Nos. 27, 55) are GRANTED in part as to Plaintiff’s claim for damages against
Defendants in their individual capacities and DENIED in part as to Plaintiff’s claim for
injunctive relief against Defendants Katherine Trostel, Kelly Storm, Corby Free, and Annette
Chambers-Smith in their official capacities.
The Court also DENIES the following Motions: Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 29); Plaintiff’s Accelerated Calendar Request for Emergency Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunction Pursuant to Rule 65.1 (ECF No. 30);
Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 49); and Plaintiff’s Notice to the Court that Defendants
are Causing Further Injury/Request for a Hearing on Plaintiff’s Unheard Injunctive Relief
Motion (ECF No. 68); and Plaintiff’s Motion for Declaratory Judgment (ECF No. 31).
This case remains open.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8/30/2024
DATE

s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5