Opinion
2023-00199AD
07-25-2023
GILBERT PARKER Plaintiff v. OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES Defendant
Sent to S.C. Reporter 10/09/23
MEMORANDUM DECISION
{¶1} This matter is before the Deputy Clerk for an administrative determination pursuant to R.C. 2743.10. The Deputy Clerk determines that plaintiffs claim should be denied.
Background.
{¶2} Plaintiff Gilbert Parker's state ID card expired on May 12, 2021. He made two attempts to obtain a replacement ID, but the defendant Bureau of Motor Vehicles ("BMV") denied both attempts.
{¶3} The first attempt was on May 12, 2022. Mr. Parker presented his expired ID, a copy of his birth certificate, his Social Security card, and a bill from Duke Energy to establish the various facts necessary obtain an ID. The BMV declined to issue a new ID based on a photocopy of Mr. Parker's birth certificate.
{¶4} The second attempt was on February 17, 2023. Mr. Parker again presented his expired ID, a copy of his birth certificate, and Social Security card. He supplemented those things with a notice of hearing from the Social Security Administration, a certified copy of a court order, and benefits information from the Department of Jobs and Family Services. BMV once again denied his request for a replacement ID, stating that a photocopy of his birth certificate was not sufficient.
{¶5} Mr. Parker filed this case, asserting multiple claims. He claims that the BMV's actions violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and constituted both negligence and negligence per se. He seeks damages and such equitable relief as would result in his obtaining a new ID as soon as possible. His complaint was served on BMV for a response, BMV filed an investigation report, and the time for Mr. Parker to reply to that report has expired. The case is now ready for decision.
Analysis.
This court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff's §1983 claims and claims for equitable relief.
{¶6} Mr. Parker's § 1983 claim fails because "the Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over * * * Section 1983, Title 42, U.S. Code claims." Bleicher v. Univ. of Cincinnati College of Medicine, 78 Ohio App.3d 302, 307, 604 N.E.2d 783 (10th Dist.1992). Similarly, his claim for equitable relief fails because "R.C. 2743.10 does not confer equity jurisdiction at the Administrative Determination level of this court. Administrative Determination actions are solely for money damages." Davis v. Dept. of Rehab. & Correction, Ct. of Cl. No. 2012-04561-AD, 2012-Ohio-5278, ¶ 9. "Equity jurisdiction in matters involving the state are reserved for judicial review." Id.
Plaintiff's negligence and negligence per se claims fail because he has not shown that defendant violated a duty to him
{¶7} "In order to recover on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, (2) that the defendant breached that duty, and (3) that the breach of the duty proximately caused the plaintiff's injury." Chambers v. St. Mary's School, 82 Ohio St.3d 563, 565, 697 N.E.2d 198 (1998). The elements of a negligence per se claim are the same, except that the existence and violation of a duty are based on the violation of a statute. Id., Ohio Turnpike & Infrastructure Comm. v. Vlasach, 2018-Ohio-4017, 120 N.E.3d 105 (7th Dist.), ¶¶ 23-25.
{¶8} Mr. Parker's negligence and negligence per se claims both fail for want of a duty. He has not shown that BMV had a duty to issue him a new ID based on the documentation he presented. To the contrary, the controlling standards indicate that the BMV was required to deny Mr. Parker's requests.
{¶9} Those standards are set by Ohio Adm. Code 4501:1-1-21. It requires a person who seeks to replace an ID that has been expired for more than six months to establish, among other things, his "[s]tatus as a citizen, permanent resident or temporary resident of the United States." Ohio Adm. Code 4501:1-1-21 (C)(5). It sets out the types of documentation that are sufficient to establish that status. Ohio Adm. Code 4501:1-1-21(G).
{¶10} None of the documents Mr. Parker presented met those standards. The closest he came was an apparently uncertified photocopy of his birth certificate, but the regulation requires "either an original or certified copy" of any birth certificate relied upon. See also, Ohio Adm. Code 4501:1-1-21(D) ("All documents shall be an original or a copy bearing an original certification by the issuing authority. Uncertified copies or copies of certified copies shall not be acceptable. Failure to provide sufficient acceptable identification documents shall result in the denial of the Ohio credential"). The BMV therefore had no duty to issue a replacement ID to Mr. Parker.
{¶11} As discussed above, the existence and violation of a duty are essential elements of both negligence and negligence per se claims. Mr. Parker has not shown those elements. His negligence and negligence and negligence per se claims therefore fail.
ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
{¶12} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file, and for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs shall be absorbed by the court in excess of the filing fee.