Hosseinipour v. Ohio Atty. Gen.

[Cite as Hosseinipour v. Ohio Atty. Gen., 

.]




                              IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO



 AHMAD HOSSEINIPOUR                                     Case No. 2022-00698JD

         Plaintiff                                      Judge Patrick E. Sheeran
                                                        Magistrate Holly True Shaver
         v.
                                                        DECISION
 OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al

         Defendants

        {¶1} On October 26, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C).           While Plaintiff did not file a response to the motion, on
November 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Oral Hearing and the Appointment of
Counsel. However, Plaintiff’s Motion does not indicate that he served Defendants with a
copy thereof.
        {¶2} According to Civ.R. 5(A): “Except as otherwise provided in these rules, every
order required by its terms to be served, every pleading subsequent to the original
complaint unless the court otherwise orders because of numerous defendants, every
paper relating to discovery required to be served upon a party unless the court otherwise
orders, every written motion other than one which may be heard ex parte, and every
written notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment, and similar paper shall be served
upon each of the parties. * * *.” (Emphasis added.) And according to Civ.R. 5(B)(4), the
served document “shall be accompanied by a completed proof of service which shall state
the date and manner of service, specifically identify the division of Civ.R. 5(B)(2) by which
the service was made and be signed in accordance with Civ.R. 11. Documents filed with
the court shall not be considered until proof of service is endorsed thereon or separately
filed.” (Emphasis added.)
        {¶3} Plaintiff did not include a proof of service with his Motion, thus, the Motion
could be denied on this basis alone. Nevertheless, regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for the
Appointment of Counsel, “an indigent litigant has a right to appointed counsel only when,
Case No. 2022-00698JD                         -2-                                   DECISION


if he loses, he may be deprived of his physical liberty.” Perotti v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. &
Corr., 

 (10th Dist.1989), citing Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services,

 (1981). Plaintiff is not at risk of losing his physical liberty as a result
of any determination that may be made by the Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s November
14, 2022 Motion for the Appointment of Counsel is DENIED as moot. Moreover, Pursuant
to L.C.C.R. 4(D), Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is now before the Court for
a non-oral hearing. Thus, Plaintiff’s November 14, 2022 Motion for an Oral Hearing is
DENIED as moot.
       {¶4} Turning to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court GRANTS
Defendant’s Motion for the reasons stated herein.

Standard of Review
       {¶5} Motions for summary judgment are reviewed under the standard set forth in
Civ.R. 56(C), which states, in part:
       Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings,
       depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits,
       transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in
       the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
       that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
       No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this rule.
       A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the
       evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that
       reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is
       adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is
       made, that party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed
       most strongly in the party’s favor.
“[T]he moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial court of the basis
for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record before the trial court which
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact on a material element of the
nonmoving party’s claim.” Dresher v. Burt, 

, 

Case No. 2022-00698JD                        -3-                                 DECISION


(1996). To meet this initial burden, the moving party must be able to point to evidentiary
materials of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C). 

.
        {¶6} If the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party bears a
reciprocal burden outlined in Civ.R. 56(E), which states, in part:
        When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided
        in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or
        denials of the party’s pleadings, but the party’s response, by affidavit or as
        otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that
        there is a genuine issue for trial. If the party does not so respond, summary
        judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the party.

Facts
        {¶7} According to Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendants did not allow him to defend
himself during a hearing before the State Medical Board in which his medical license was
at stake, resulting in his license being permanently revoked (Complaint at ¶ 12). Plaintiff
further asserts that his license was revoked when he was severely depressed, and that
Defendants erroneously diagnosed him with a personality disorder. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks
$10,000,000 in damages and for his medical license to be reinstated (Id. at ¶ 14).
        {¶8} Defendants assert that they are entitled to summary judgment based on the
doctrine of res judicata and the running of the statute of limitations. In support of the
Motion, Defendants submitted Plaintiff’s complaint in Ohio Court of Claims Case Number
2001-08188 and this Court’s May 5, 2003, trial decision in that case. (Defendants’
Exhibits A and B, respectively.)
        {¶9} Defendants’ Motion and the evidence submitted with it establish the following
material facts. In Hosseinipour v. State Med. Bd., No. 2001-08188 (Hosseinipour I),
Plaintiff contended that on February 11, 1998, the State Medical Board revoked his
medical license based on discriminatory practices. (Defendants’, Exh. A). This claim was
filed by Plaintiff, against the State Medical Board of Ohio on August 10, 2001, in this
Court. 

 On May 5, 2003, this Court issued a decision after a trial in Hosseinipour I
(Defendants’, Exh. B). In the decision, the Court held that Plaintiff’s claim was barred by
the statute of limitations, that Plaintiff failed to prove that he was of unsound mind such
Case No. 2022-00698JD                         -4-                                  DECISION


that the statute of limitations would be tolled, that Plaintiff failed to prove that he was
discriminated against when the State Medical Board refused to consider his petition for
reinstatement, and that the Court lacked jurisdiction to review the State Medical Board’s
decision to revoke Plaintiff’s medical license. 

 The Tenth District Court of Appeals
affirmed this Court’s decision. See Hosseinipour v. State Medical Board, 10th Dist.
Franklin No. 03AP-512, 

.

Res Judicata
       {¶10} In the Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants initially argue that
Plaintiff’s prior case against the Medical Board, Hosseinipour I, barred Plaintiff’s claim
based on the doctrine of res judicata (Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 4).
The doctrine of res judicata encompasses two distinct yet related preclusive effects—
claim preclusion (estoppel by judgment) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel).
“Collateral estoppel * * * prevents parties or their privies from relitigating facts and issues
in a subsequent suit that were fully litigated in a prior suit.” Stroud v. Dept. of Rehab. &
Correction, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 03AP-139, 

, citing Thompson v.
Wing, 

, 

, 

 (1994). “Collateral
estoppel applies when the fact or issue (1) was actually and directly litigated in the prior
action, (2) was passed upon and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, and (3)
when the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party in privity with a
party to the prior action.” 

 citing Whitehead v. Gen. Tel. Co., 

, 

 (1969), paragraph two of the syllabus.
       {¶11} The Court finds issue preclusion bars Plaintiff’s claims in this case. The
issues of whether Plaintiff’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations, whether Plaintiff
was of unsound mind such that the statute of limitations would be tolled, whether Plaintiff
was discriminated against when the State Medical Board refused to consider his petition
for reinstatement, and whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the State Medical
Board’s decision to revoke Plaintiff’s medical license (1) were actually and directly
litigated in Hosseinipour I, (2) were passed upon and previously determined by this Court,
and (3) the parties in Hosseinipour I and this claim are in privity. Therefore, the Court
concludes that Plaintiff is collaterally estopped from relitigating such issues.          See
Case No. 2022-00698JD                       -5-                                   DECISION


Hosseinipour v. State Med. Bd., Ct. of Cl. No. 2001-08188 (May 5, 2003). Consequently,
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and Defendants are entitled to summary
judgment as a matter of law.

Statute of Limitations
      {¶12} Defendants further argue that to the extent, if any, that Plaintiff’s claim is not
estopped, it should be barred by the statute of limitations. R.C. 2743.16(A) states, in
relevant part: “civil actions against the state * * * shall be commenced no later than two
years after the date of accrual of the cause of action or within any shorter period that is
applicable to similar suits between private parties.” As a general rule, “a ‘[s]tatute of
limitations commences to run so soon as the injurious act complained of is perpetrated
* * *.’” LGR Realty, Inc. v. Frank & London Ins. Agency, 

, 2018-Ohio-
334, 

, quoting Kerns v. Schoonmaker, 

 (1831), syllabus.
      {¶13} Plaintiff’s medical license was revoked on February 11, 1998 (Defendants’
Exh. A). Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this case on September 27, 2022. (Complaint.)
Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claim is also barred by the two-year statute of
limitations found in R.C. 2743.16(A).

Conclusion
      {¶14} Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that there are no genuine issues
of material fact and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. For these
reasons Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and judgment is
hereby rendered in favor of Defendants.




                                           PATRICK E. SHEERAN
                                           Judge
[Cite as Hosseinipour v. Ohio Atty. Gen., 

.]




 AHMAD HOSSEINIPOUR                                     Case No. 2022-00698JD

          Plaintiff                                     Judge Patrick E. Sheeran
                                                        Magistrate Holly True Shaver
          v.
                                                        JUDGMENT ENTRY
 OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.

          Defendants



                                IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO


         {¶15} A non-oral hearing was conducted in this case upon Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth in the decision filed concurrently herewith,
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and judgment is rendered in
favor of Defendants. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot. Court costs are
assessed against Plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment
and its date of entry upon the journal.




                                                    PATRICK E. SHEERAN
                                                    Judge

Filed December 30, 2022
Sent to S.C. Reporter 1/12/23