Nelson v. Rodriguez , 2011 Ohio 996 ( 2011 )

[Cite as Nelson v. Rodriguez, 2011-Ohio-996.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
HANCOCK COUNTY
__________________________________________________________________
RANDALL J. NELSON, CASE NO. 5-10-20
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
ALAINNAH B. RODRIGUEZ, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
__________________________________________________________________
Appeal from Hancock County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 2010-CV-378
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: March 7, 2011
APPEARANCES:
Randall J. Nelson, Appellant
Alainnah B. Rodriguez, Appellee
Case No. 5-10-20
PRESTON, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Randall J. Nelson (“Nelson”), pro-se, appeals the
Hancock County Common Pleas’ judgment denying his motion to file his civil
complaint against defendant-appellee, Alainnah B. Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”), in
forma pauperis. We affirm.
{¶2} On May 21, 2010, Nelson filed a “Motion to file a civil complaint
Informa Pauperis” against Rodriguez in the Hancock County Court of Common
Pleas. (Doc. No. 6). Nelson attached to his motion an affidavit of indigency. (Id.).
A copy of Nelson’s complaint was included in the file but was neither file-
stamped nor docketed by the clerk. Nelson’s complaint essentially alleged that
Rodriguez, his ex-girlfriend, defamed him by sending MySpace emails stating that
he had infected her with HIV (AIDS).
{¶3} On June 4, 2010, the trial court overruled Nelson’s motion to file his
complaint in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 7). On June 28, 2010, Nelson filed a
notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 8). Nelson now appeals raising one assignment of
error for our review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE COMPLAINT INFORMA
[SIC] PAUPERIS.
-2-
Case No. 5-10-20
{¶4} In his sole assignment of error, Nelson argues that the trial court erred
by denying his motion to file his civil complaint without deposit of court costs.
We disagree.
{¶5} Ohio’s Common Pleas Courts have inherent power to secure the
orderly administration of justice and safeguard against conduct which would
impair the free exercise of judicial functions. Eubank v. Doneghy (June 9, 1989),
6th Dist. No. L-88-193, at *1, citing Zangerle v. Common Pleas Court (1943), 141
Ohio St. 70, 46 N.E.2d 865. See, also, 19 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (2010), Costs in
Civil Actions, Section 34. As an exercise of that inherent authority, it is within the
court’s discretion to determine whether indigency status is proper in a particular
case for waiving the deposit for security of costs. Guisinger v. Spier, 166 Ohio
App.3d 728, 2006-Ohio-1810, 853 N.E.2d 320, ¶6, citing Wilson v. Ohio Dept. of
Rehab. and Corr. (2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 239, 243, 741 N.E.2d 152. When
making this determination, a trial court may consider: “whether the litigant has
caused the court’s limited resources to be expended needlessly in the past by filing
numerous, repetitious, or frivolous complaints[;] whether the affidavit of
indigency includes sufficient information concerning the litigant’s financial
condition[;] whether additional information is required[;] and whether the affidavit
of indigency appears to be reasonable under conditions then existing.” Spier at ¶6,
citing Wilson at 243. Nevertheless, “[t]he determination of indigence for purposes
of whether a plaintiff should be required to pay filing fees and court costs ‘is
-3-
Case No. 5-10-20
typically granted liberally in order to preserve the due process rights of litigants
and guarantee an access to judicial process and representation.’” Spier at ¶6,
quoting Evans v. Evans, 10th Dist. Nos. 04AP-816, 04AP-1208, 2005-Ohio-5090,
¶23.
{¶6} “The standard of review in an appeal from a decision denying a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is an abuse of discretion.” Wilson,
138 Ohio App.3d at 243. An “abuse of discretion” has been defined as an
unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable act on the part of the trial court.
Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140.
{¶7} The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Nelson’s motion
to file his civil complaint in forma pauperis. Although the trial court concluded
that Nelson’s actual indigent status was “indisputable” and failed to find that
Nelson had abused the judicial process, the trial court concluded that Nelson
“ha[d] failed to establish any compelling public interest or individual necessity
requiring that he be permitted to pursue his complaint without tendering the
sufficient deposit in advance.” (June 4, 2010 JE, Doc. No. 7). The trial court’s
rational is not succinctly stated, but it appears to have determined that Nelson’s
indigency status for purposes of waiving the deposit for security of costs was not
“reasonable under conditions then existing.” See Spier at ¶6, citing Wilson at 243.
As such, we cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion by denying
Nelson’s motion to file his complaint in forma pauperis.
-4-
Case No. 5-10-20
{¶8} Nelson’s assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
Judgment Affirmed
SHAW, J., concurs.
/jnc
WILLAMOWSKI, J., dissents.
{¶9} I disagree with the majority in that I would find the trial court’s
judgment to be an abuse of discretion. R.C. 2323.31 specifically provides that “if
a plaintiff makes an affidavit of inability either to prepay or give security for costs,
the clerk of the court shall receive and file the petition.”
The determination of indigence for purposes of whether a
plaintiff should be required to pay filing fees and court costs “is
typically granted liberally in order to preserve the due process
rights of litigants and guarantee an access to judicial process and
representation.” Evans v. Evans, Franklin App. Nos. 04AP-816 &
04AP-1208, 2005-Ohio-5090, 2005 WL 2364976, ¶23. “While
courts traditionally waive filing fees and costs for indigent
persons in order to promote the interests of justice, it is within
the court’s discretion whether indigency status is proper in a
particular case. The trial court may consider whether a litigant
has caused the court’s limited resources to be expended
needlessly in the past by filing numerous, repetitious, or
frivolous complaints, whether the affidavit of indigency includes
sufficient information concerning the litigant’s financial
condition, whether additional information is required, and
whether the affidavit of indigency appears to be reasonable
under conditions then existing.” Wilson v. Dept. of Rehab. &
Corr. (2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 239, 243, 741 N.E.2d 152.
Guisinger v. Spier, 166 Ohio App.3d 728, 2006-Ohio-1810, ¶6, 853 N.E.2d 320.
-5-
Case No. 5-10-20
{¶10} The majority recognizes that the trial court found that Nelson was
indigent and that the trial court made no findings that Nelson had previously
abused the process. The majority then affirms the trial court’s decision because it
appears that the trial court found that the waiver was not reasonable under
conditions then existing. However, the trial court did not find the affidavit
unreasonable. The trial court had no issues with the affidavit itself. Specifically,
the trial court found that “[b]ased upon the information supplied [in the affidavit],
it is indisputable that the Plaintiff is indigent.” J.E. 1. Instead the trial court
determined that the case lacked “any compelling public interest or individual
necessity.” J.E. 3. That is not the standard that is to be used in reviewing the
affidavit. Therefore, I would reverse the judgment of the trial court.
-6-