State ex rel. Hatfield v. French , 2023 Ohio 429 ( 2023 )

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State
ex rel. Hatfield v. Miller, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-429.]
NOTICE
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is published.
SLIP OPINION NO. 2023-OHIO-429THE STATE EX REL . HATFIELD, APPELLANT , v. MILLER, JUDGE, APPELLEE.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
may be cited as State ex rel. Hatfield v. Miller, Slip Opinion No.
2023-Ohio-429.]
Civil law—Civ.R. 60(B)(5)—Alleged errors in court of appeals’ reasoning in
dismissal of mandamus complaint and order striking subsequent Civ.R.
60(B)(5) motion should have been raised in timely appeal of court’s
decision—Litigant cannot use Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment
as substitute for timely appeal—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed.
(No. 2022-0561—Submitted January 10, 2023—Decided February 16, 2023.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 20AP-97.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} The Tenth District Court of Appeals dismissed appellant Todd L.
Hatfield’s complaint for a writ of mandamus. Instead of appealing the court of
appeals’ decision, Hatfield filed three motions for relief from judgment under
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Civ.R. 60(B)(5). Hatfield appeals the court of appeals’ denial of the last of those
motions. We affirm, but we do so for different reasons than the court of appeals
gave.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
{¶ 2} Hatfield was convicted in 2003 of aggravated murder, gross abuse of
a corpse, and tampering with evidence, and he was sentenced to an aggregate term
of 24 years and 11 months to life imprisonment. See State v. Hatfield, 10th Dist.
Franklin No. 06AP-1205, 2007-Ohio-3735, ¶ 2. Hatfield’s convictions were
affirmed on appeal. Id. at ¶ 3, 11.
{¶ 3} In February 2020, Hatfield filed an original action in the court of
appeals, seeking a writ of mandamus ordering Franklin County Court of Common
Pleas Judge Jenifer French to (1) properly charge him with a crime pursuant to
Crim.R. 3, (2) require the state to analyze bloody-fingerprint evidence, (3) provide
him with a copy of the opening statements and closing arguments from his trial,
and (4) order the state to provide him with discovery related to his criminal case.1
{¶ 4} Judge French filed a motion to dismiss Hatfield’s petition under
Civ.R. 12(B)(6), which Hatfield opposed. The case was assigned to a magistrate,
who recommended dismissal of the action because Hatfield had an adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of the law—namely, an appeal from his criminal
conviction—to raise the issues asserted in the mandamus complaint. See State ex
rel. Hatfield v. French, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 20AP-97, 2022-Ohio-23, ¶ 30.
Hatfield filed objections to the magistrate’s decision and a motion to supplement
his complaint under Civ.R. 15(E). On January 6, 2022, the court of appeals granted
1. When Hatfield filed his mandamus action, Judge French was the trial judge assigned to his
criminal case. During the pendency of the proceedings in the court of appeals, Judge French was
replaced on the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas by Judge Andy Miller. We hereby
substitute Judge Miller as the appellee. See S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.06(B).
2
January Term, 2023
the motion to supplement, overruled Hatfield’s objections, granted the motion to
dismiss, and denied the writ. See id. at ¶ 7-9.
{¶ 5} Hatfield did not appeal the court of appeals’ dismissal of his
complaint. Rather, on February 7, he filed a “Motion for the Trial Court, to
Withdraw Its Order/Decision, of January 6/2022, Pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(5)” (the
“first motion”). The court of appeals sua sponte struck this motion from the record,
stating that it was “not a proper pleading in this closed original action.” Hatfield
then filed a second Civ.R. 60(B) motion on March 16, this one styled as a “Motion
to Relieve the Relator from the Trial Court[’]s Judgement of January 6/2022,
Pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(5)” (the “second motion”). The court of appeals also
struck this motion as procedurally improper.
{¶ 6} On April 5, Hatfield filed yet a third motion for relief from judgment
under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) (the “third motion”), this time seeking relief from the court
of appeals’ order striking his second motion from the record. The court of appeals
denied the third motion on April 11. In its order, the court of appeals purported to
clarify why it had previously declined to consider Hatfield’s original request2 for
Civ.R. 60(B) relief:
In his renewed motion, relator asserts that this court incorrectly
struck his first motion for relief from judgment because Civ.R.
60(B) relief is, in fact, available when this court issues a judgment
sitting as the trial court. Appellant is, of course, correct. However,
relator’s argument reflects a misunderstanding of why the court
struck relator’s first motion for relief from judgment.
2. The court of appeals referred to Hatfield’s April 5 motion as his “second motion” seeking relief
from the January 6 decision and his February 7 motion as the “first motion.” The April 5 motion,
however, was Hatfield’s third motion for relief under Civ.R. 60(B), as he had filed his second
motion on March 16. Hatfield’s first and second motions both sought relief, under Civ.R. 60(B)(5),
from the court of appeals’ January 6 decision.
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Relator’s first motion was ordered stricken, not because
filing a motion pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B) was itself improper, but
because the motion failed to assert grounds for relief proper under
Civ.R. 60(B). Specifically, relator’s motion did not raise mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud,
satisfaction of judgment, or other reason justifying relief from
judgment. Instead, the arguments contained in relator’s first motion
take issue with this court’s reasoning and suggest that the court
misunderstood several of relator’s arguments. Arguments of this
sort are not properly raised in a Civ.[R.] 60(B) motion, but lend
themselves to a motion for reconsideration. Unfortunately,
reconsideration is not available in an original action governed by the
Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.
{¶ 7} Hatfield filed a “Motion for Clarification” of the court’s order. The
court of appeals struck Hatfield’s motion sua sponte as an improper filing. Hatfield
then commenced this appeal from the court of appeals’ April 11 order.
II. ANALYSIS
{¶ 8} This court reviews a decision denying a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for an
abuse of discretion. Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 21, 520
N.E.2d 564 (1988); Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172, 174, 637 N.E.2d 914(1994). To prevail, Hatfield was required to establish (1) a meritorious claim or
defense in the event relief is granted, (2) entitlement to relief under one of the
provisions of Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5), and (3) timeliness of the motion. Strack
at 174, citing GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146,
351 N.E.2d 113 (1976), paragraph two of the syllabus. Hatfield brought his motion
under Civ.R. 60(B)(5), which provides that “[o]n motion and upon such terms as
are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final
4
January Term, 2023
judgment, order or proceeding for * * * any other reason justifying relief from the
judgment.”
{¶ 9} As outlined above, in the three months following the court of appeals’
decision dismissing his mandamus complaint, Hatfield filed three motions for relief
under Civ.R. 60(B)(5). This appeal is from the court of appeals’ denial of his third
motion, in which Hatfield sought relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) from the court of
appeals’ “judgment” striking his second motion. Hatfield’s second motion, like the
first motion that was also stricken, sought relief from the court of appeals’ January
6 decision under Civ.R. 60(B)(5). In his third motion, Hatfield argued that the court
of appeals erred in striking the second motion as an improper filing because a
motion for relief filed under Civ.R. 60(B) is proper in connection with an original
action filed in a court of appeals.
{¶ 10} The court of appeals denied Hatfield’s third motion, explaining that
it struck his first Civ.R. 60(B) motion not because it was procedurally improper but,
rather, “because the motion failed to assert grounds for relief proper under Civ.R
60(B).” This reasoning is dubious: if the first (or second) motion failed to assert
proper grounds for relief under Civ.R. 60(B), the court of appeals should have
denied it. But instead of denying the motions, the court of appeals sua sponte
ordered them stricken as being “not a proper pleading in this closed original action.”
{¶ 11} Though the court of appeals’ reasoning appears questionable, its
orders denying Hatfield’s Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motions were still correct. See State ex
rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 69 Ohio St.3d 217, 222, 631
N.E.2d 150 (1994) (appellate court will not reverse a correct judgment that was
based on erroneous reasons). Hatfield argued in his first and second motions for
Civ.R. 60(B)(5) relief that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his mandamus
action. And in his third motion, Hatfield argued that the court of appeals erred in
striking his second motion for relief from judgment as procedurally improper. But
none of these motions asserts a proper basis for Civ.R. 60(B)(5) relief.
5
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 12} Civ.R. 60(B)(5) “is only to be used in an extraordinary and unusual
case when the interests of justice warrant[] it.” Adomeit v. Baltimore, 39 Ohio
App.2d 97, 105, 316 N.E.2d 469 (8th Dist.1974). This case does not fit that
description, as Hatfield’s only grounds for relief were alleged errors in the court of
appeals’ reasoning in dismissing his mandamus complaint and its order striking his
second Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion. Hatfield should have raised his claims of error in
a timely appeal from the court of appeals’ decision, not in a Civ.R. 60(B) motion.
A litigant cannot use a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment as a substitute
for a timely appeal. Harris v. Anderson, 109 Ohio St.3d 101, 2006-Ohio-1934, 846
N.E.2d 43, ¶ 9; see also Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75, 2014-
Ohio-4275, 21 N.E.3d 1040, ¶ 15 (Civ.R. 60(B) “does not exist to allow a party to
obtain relief from his or her own choice to forgo an appeal from an adverse
decision”). Accordingly, even though the court of appeals erred in its reasons for
denying Hatfield’s third motion, the denial of the motion was correct.
Judgment affirmed.
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER,
and DETERS, JJ., concur.
_________________
Todd L. Hatfield, pro se.
G. Gary Tyack, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrea C.
Hofer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
_________________
6