Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; January 14, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
A prisoner, James R. Kajfasz, claims he was denied essential dental treatment for over seven months, leading to permanent injuries and violating his Eighth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Kajfasz appeals the district court's dismissal of his case against the Allen Correctional Institute and several officials, which was granted due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction after he filed a similar claim in the Ohio Court of Claims. The key issue is whether Kajfasz waived his federal claim by pursuing the state court action. The court reverses the district court's judgment and remands for further proceedings.
Factually, Kajfasz lost a tooth filling in June 1999, made repeated requests for dental care, and was placed on a "filling list." His condition worsened, but he received limited responses, including being told he could seek emergency treatment if necessary. After a series of grievances were denied, he was seen by a dentist in February 2000 due to a gum infection, resulting in tooth removal.
Procedurally, Kajfasz initially filed a suit in the Ohio Court of Claims on June 8, 2000, but it was dismissed without prejudice for failure to file a proper affidavit of indigency. He did not refile his complaint there before initiating the federal lawsuit on November 16, 2000. The district court dismissed his claims under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) and later granted a motion to dismiss by defendants Barkimer and Matty for lack of jurisdiction, leading to this appeal filed on May 17, 2001.
The standard of review for a district court’s dismissal due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction is de novo. Kajfasz contends that he should not be bound by the waiver requirement of Ohio Revised Code 2743.02(A)(1) because he was unaware of it. This statute states that filing a civil action in the court of claims waives any cause of action against state officers or employees based on the same act or omission. The definition of "officer or employee" encompasses those serving in state positions or providing services under state contracts. Prior case law, including Leaman v. Ohio Department of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, has established that this statute can apply to federal statutory claims under 1983, and choosing to file in the Court of Claims constitutes a waiver of the right to pursue a 1983 action in federal court.
Kajfasz argues that, unlike plaintiffs in previous cases such as Leaman and Turker, who were represented by competent counsel, he is proceeding pro se. This distinction precludes a presumption that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his 1983 claim by filing in the Ohio Court of Claims. Past rulings affirm that such a waiver is only presumed when a plaintiff has legal representation. Therefore, Kajfasz’s lack of counsel undermines the assumption of a knowing waiver, contrasting with the findings in cases where plaintiffs had legal representation.
The district court did not determine whether Kajfasz knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to proceed in federal court by filing in the Ohio Court of Claims. Consequently, the matter is remanded to the district court for this essential finding. Under Ohio Rev.Code 2743.02(A)(1), a waiver of claims against individual state employees is void if the court finds that the employee acted outside the scope of their duties or with malicious intent, bad faith, or recklessness. Kajfasz does not meet this exception, and only the Ohio Court of Claims can make such a determination, which was not made in this case. However, it remains an option for Kajfasz if he chooses to re-file his claim. The judgment of the district court is reversed, and further proceedings are ordered. Kajfasz initially sued multiple defendants, but the district court dismissed claims against most of them, leaving only his Eighth Amendment claims against Barkimer and Matty to proceed.
