Preview
Ss ie
- Ses
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas-
C663 - BA7
IN THE CouRT oF COMMON PLEAS
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH
BARRON BROWN,
Plaintiff,
eee TRE
Case No. 15 cV 005987
Judge C. Brown
GARY MOHR, et al.,
Defendant(s),
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION To DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff, Barron Brown, pro se,
August 5, 2015, request
rerein opposes Defendant's
for this Court to Dismiss this Civil
Action, pursuant to Ohio Civ.R. 12(B)(1) ana 12(B)(6),
for lack
of jurisdiction, and Failure to
State a Claim upon Which relief
can be Granted. For reasons set forth in the Supporting
Memorandum attached hereto,
Respectfully
-
itted
TLS-o (>
Barron Brown #465913 : 13
thillicothe Corr. Inst.
P. 0. Box 5500
Chillicothe, Ohio 45601
Plaintiff, pro seFranklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Sep 02 1245 PM-15CVO0SS87,—
C663 - B48
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
I. CASE FACTS:
On July 15, 2015, Plaintiff commenced this suit alleging that
pursuant to Civil Rule 18 3626(c)(20 Breach of the Settlement
Agreement in CAse No. 2:08 ev 15, with a request for Jury Demand
endorsed hereon pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 2743.11,
attached. As an original Class Member, in a prior Civil
proceeding that was decided in previous litigation arising out
of a Class Action Suit, against the Defendants. Smith V. Ohio
dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis
58534, culminated in the parties entering into a Settlement
Agreement.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, on April 26, 2012 approved the parties
stipulated private Settlement Agreement, which provides in
pertinent part, that "[a]ny action resulting from the
performance or hon-performance of this agreement shall be
brought in State Court. Any inmate of C.C.I. may file an action
in State Court to enforce this agreement.
Om May 26, 2015, after a filing pursuant to Civil Rule 18
3626(c)(2) Breach of the Settlement Agreement in CAse No. 2:08
ev 15. The Sourthern District of Ohio, Eastern Division handed
down an Order for these matters to be litigated and/or settled
in the appropriate proceedings in an appropriate State Court, by
the Higher Court's Order, Also stating that the matter could be
resolved without consideration of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
See Ex. CC.
II. LEGAL STANDARD AND ARGUMENT:
The Defendant's argument is typical of the Counsel from the
Attorney General's Office, point being hostile litigation in
describing the Plaintiff as a frequent flyer, in an ill-
disguised effort to milk $7,5000,000.00, out of a Private
Settlement Agreement. In these remarks itself it's only
4Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Sep 02 12:15 PM-15CVo05987,
0C663 - B49
confirmation in the Complaint itself, In a cheap attempt to
avoid the true fact of the matter, which is that Defendant's are
in Breach of the Settlement Agreement, in Case No. 2:08 cv 15,
pursuant to Civil Rule 18 3626(c)(2).
The defendant's are trying to confuse this Court,
purposefully by intertwining arguendo that has nothing to do
with the issue at hand. The higher Court issued an Order from
the Southern District of Ohio, eastern Division that
specifically states that this proper forum to resolve this
situation. the Court must accept all well pleaded material
allegations of the Complaint as true, J _P Morgan Chase Bank,
N.A. V. Winget, 510 F. 3g 577, 581 (6th Cir, 2007).
The Complaint has shown specifically through exhibits within
the complaint itself, improprieties through the Defendant's
actions. As a Class Member Plaintiff's rights were protected to
Pursue monetary damages. Defendant's are totally off of it's
bases citing jurisdictional issues, civil rules 12(B)(1) and
12(B)(6).
The higher Court has spoken and it is so Ordered, the
Defendant's can't explain that the Higher Court's are wrong in
its reasoning and conclusion, if so 1 would ask that the
Defendant's would please do so with all respect and regards,
Plaintiff has been reasonably specific in identifying the
incidents, acts, and actors giving rise to the claim for Relief,
Chapman Vv. City of Detroit, 808 F.24 459, 465 (6th Cir. 1986),
wer The required factual specificity obligates the Plaintiff to
allege the specific conduct violating the Plaintiff's rights,
the time and Place of that conduct, and the identity of the
responsible parties, Hurt y. Philadelphia Housing Auth., 806 F,
Supp. 515, 529 (F.p. pa 1992), quoting, Colburn V. Upper Darby
Township, 838 F.24 663, 666 (3rd Cir. 1988). When considering a
Rule 12(B)(6) Motion, the Court must dicect its attention to the
complaint itself and may mot consider extrinsic evidence inFranklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- :
C663 - B50
determining whether the complaint states a Claim upon which
Relief can be Granted, Humenik Vv. Wilkerson, 1999 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 4530.
TIL. CONCLUSION:
Plaintiff contends that Defendant's jurisdiction argument is
baseless and without merit, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,
should be Denied and Plaintiff's Complaint allowed to proceed
it's natural course for a Jury Demand, and/or Settlement with
the individual complaintant. The Higher Court has said any
inmate at C.C.I, may file an action in State Court to Enforce
this Agreement. See Exhibit cc.
Respectfully itted,
Barron Brown # 465913 Alin
Chillicothe Corr. Inst. PS
P. 0. Box 5500
Chillicothe, Ohio 45601
Plaintiff, pro se
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing, Plaintiff's
Opposition to Defendant's Mo ion to Dismiss, was sent by regular
U.S. Mail service, this Wax. of August, 2015, to Mindy Worly
(0037395), Principal Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Justice Section, Corrections Unit, 150 East Gay Street, 16th
Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215.
Bertoni
Barron Brown €465913 FACS.
4
Plaintiff, pro se 913
Preview
Ss ie - Ses Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- C663 - BA7 IN THE CouRT oF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH BARRON BROWN, Plaintiff, eee TRE Case No. 15 cV 005987 Judge C. Brown GARY MOHR, et al., Defendant(s), PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION To DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, Barron Brown, pro se, August 5, 2015, request rerein opposes Defendant's for this Court to Dismiss this Civil Action, pursuant to Ohio Civ.R. 12(B)(1) ana 12(B)(6), for lack of jurisdiction, and Failure to State a Claim upon Which relief can be Granted. For reasons set forth in the Supporting Memorandum attached hereto, Respectfully - itted TLS-o (> Barron Brown #465913 : 13 thillicothe Corr. Inst. P. 0. Box 5500 Chillicothe, Ohio 45601 Plaintiff, pro seFranklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Sep 02 1245 PM-15CVO0SS87,— C663 - B48 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT I. CASE FACTS: On July 15, 2015, Plaintiff commenced this suit alleging that pursuant to Civil Rule 18 3626(c)(20 Breach of the Settlement Agreement in CAse No. 2:08 ev 15, with a request for Jury Demand endorsed hereon pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 2743.11, attached. As an original Class Member, in a prior Civil proceeding that was decided in previous litigation arising out of a Class Action Suit, against the Defendants. Smith V. Ohio dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 58534, culminated in the parties entering into a Settlement Agreement. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, on April 26, 2012 approved the parties stipulated private Settlement Agreement, which provides in pertinent part, that "[a]ny action resulting from the performance or hon-performance of this agreement shall be brought in State Court. Any inmate of C.C.I. may file an action in State Court to enforce this agreement. Om May 26, 2015, after a filing pursuant to Civil Rule 18 3626(c)(2) Breach of the Settlement Agreement in CAse No. 2:08 ev 15. The Sourthern District of Ohio, Eastern Division handed down an Order for these matters to be litigated and/or settled in the appropriate proceedings in an appropriate State Court, by the Higher Court's Order, Also stating that the matter could be resolved without consideration of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. See Ex. CC. II. LEGAL STANDARD AND ARGUMENT: The Defendant's argument is typical of the Counsel from the Attorney General's Office, point being hostile litigation in describing the Plaintiff as a frequent flyer, in an ill- disguised effort to milk $7,5000,000.00, out of a Private Settlement Agreement. In these remarks itself it's only 4Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Sep 02 12:15 PM-15CVo05987, 0C663 - B49 confirmation in the Complaint itself, In a cheap attempt to avoid the true fact of the matter, which is that Defendant's are in Breach of the Settlement Agreement, in Case No. 2:08 cv 15, pursuant to Civil Rule 18 3626(c)(2). The defendant's are trying to confuse this Court, purposefully by intertwining arguendo that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The higher Court issued an Order from the Southern District of Ohio, eastern Division that specifically states that this proper forum to resolve this situation. the Court must accept all well pleaded material allegations of the Complaint as true, J _P Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. V. Winget, 510 F. 3g 577, 581 (6th Cir, 2007). The Complaint has shown specifically through exhibits within the complaint itself, improprieties through the Defendant's actions. As a Class Member Plaintiff's rights were protected to Pursue monetary damages. Defendant's are totally off of it's bases citing jurisdictional issues, civil rules 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(6). The higher Court has spoken and it is so Ordered, the Defendant's can't explain that the Higher Court's are wrong in its reasoning and conclusion, if so 1 would ask that the Defendant's would please do so with all respect and regards, Plaintiff has been reasonably specific in identifying the incidents, acts, and actors giving rise to the claim for Relief, Chapman Vv. City of Detroit, 808 F.24 459, 465 (6th Cir. 1986), wer The required factual specificity obligates the Plaintiff to allege the specific conduct violating the Plaintiff's rights, the time and Place of that conduct, and the identity of the responsible parties, Hurt y. Philadelphia Housing Auth., 806 F, Supp. 515, 529 (F.p. pa 1992), quoting, Colburn V. Upper Darby Township, 838 F.24 663, 666 (3rd Cir. 1988). When considering a Rule 12(B)(6) Motion, the Court must dicect its attention to the complaint itself and may mot consider extrinsic evidence inFranklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- : C663 - B50 determining whether the complaint states a Claim upon which Relief can be Granted, Humenik Vv. Wilkerson, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4530. TIL. CONCLUSION: Plaintiff contends that Defendant's jurisdiction argument is baseless and without merit, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, should be Denied and Plaintiff's Complaint allowed to proceed it's natural course for a Jury Demand, and/or Settlement with the individual complaintant. The Higher Court has said any inmate at C.C.I, may file an action in State Court to Enforce this Agreement. See Exhibit cc. Respectfully itted, Barron Brown # 465913 Alin Chillicothe Corr. Inst. PS P. 0. Box 5500 Chillicothe, Ohio 45601 Plaintiff, pro se CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing, Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Mo ion to Dismiss, was sent by regular U.S. Mail service, this Wax. of August, 2015, to Mindy Worly (0037395), Principal Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Justice Section, Corrections Unit, 150 East Gay Street, 16th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Bertoni Barron Brown €465913 FACS. 4 Plaintiff, pro se 913