[Cite as Faber v. Seneca Cty. Sheriff's Dept., 2018-Ohio-786.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT SENECA COUNTY ERIC A. FABER, ET AL., CASE NO. 13-17-29 PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. SENECA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OPINION DEPT., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES. Appeal from Seneca County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 17-CV-0013 Judgment Affirmed Date of Decision: March 5, 2018 APPEARANCES: Gene P. Murray for Appellants Teresa L. Grigsby for Appellees Case No. 13-17-29 WILLAMOWSKI, P.J., {¶1} Plaintiffs-appellants Eric A. Faber (“Eric”), Robert E. Faber, and Martha J. Faber appeal the judgment of the Seneca County Court of Common Pleas (1) for granting appellees’ 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss; and (2) for finding the appellants’ claim for injunctive relief to be moot. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. Facts and Procedural History {¶2} On January 10, 2017, the appellants filed a complaint that named the Seneca County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff William E. Eckelberry (“Sheriff Eckelberry”) as defendants. Doc. 2. The complaint alleged that Eric, while he was an inmate in the Seneca County Jail, was assaulted on January 13, 2015, by another inmate Jose Garcia (“Garcia”). Id. Garcia was allegedly an illegal immigrant who was in the appellees’ custody and was awaiting deportation. Id. The complaint claims that Garcia was motivated to assault Eric by a desire “to obtain a new criminal offense, and thereby avoid or otherwise delay his deportation * * *.” Id. The complaint stated that the appellees were “responsible for the operation of the Seneca County Jail” and “fail[ed] to safeguard and protect their ward.” Id. {¶3} The appellants also requested an order from the trial court that would require the appellees to keep detainees who are awaiting deportation in a separate area from the other inmates in the local jail. Id. If the appellees were not able to keep the ICE detainees separately from the other inmates, the appellants -2- Case No. 13-17-29 alternatively requested “the [trial court] to Order that the Defendants cease and desist from any further participation in the ICE-related detaining and deportation process.” Id. {¶4} On June 1, 2017, the appellees filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Doc. 14. In this motion, the appellees argued that Sheriff Eckelberry was only sued in his official capacity and, therefore, had immunity under R.C. 2744.02. Id. The trial court granted the appellees’ motion on September 6, 2017. Doc. 17. The appellants filed notice of appeal on October 6, 2017. Doc. 18. On appeal, the appellants raise the following two assignments of error: First Assignment of Error The trial court abused its discretion by erroneously deciding that no allegations of liability were made in the complaint against Defendant William E. Eckelberry, individually, …As the plaintiffs did indeed claim damages jointly and “severally” against each defendant, thereby individualizing the actions and the claims against each defendant, with allegations of recklessness, and accordingly stating a valid actionable claim against the named individual, William E. Eckelberry, in the complaint, which ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals