State ex rel. Richard v. Cuyahoga Cty. Commrs. - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

[Cite as State ex rel. Richard v. Cuyahoga Cty. Commrs., 89 Ohio St.3d 205, 2000-Ohio-135.]

THE STATE EX REL. RICHARD, APPELLANT, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ET AL., APPELLEES.
[Cite as State ex rel. Richard v. Cuyahoga Cty. Commrs. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d
205.]
Appellate procedure -- Appeal dismissed when not properly perfected.
(No. 99-2250 -- Submitted April 10, 2000 -- Decided June 21, 2000.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 66528.

On February 28, 1995, the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County exercised
its inherent authority to deny appellant, Donald L. Richard, in forma pauperis
status for the future filing of original actions in that court. State ex rel. Richard v.
Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1995), 100 Ohio App.3d 592, 654 N.E.2d 443.
The court of appeals found that Richard had consistently abused the process of that
court by filing sixty-three original actions over a three-year period. Id., 100 Ohio
App.3d at 593-594, 654 N.E.2d at 444.

Instead of appealing this judgment, Richard waited until October 1999,
when he filed a Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion in the court of appeals for relief from the
February 28, 1995 judgment to correct alleged judicial misconduct of the court of
appeals judges who entered the judgment. In his motion, Richard claimed that the
1995 judgment was erroneous because the court imposed the sanction denying him

in forma pauperis status in the context of a reconsideration motion and because the
myriad of original actions filed by Richard were not frivolous. The court of
appeals denied the motion.

The cause is now before this court upon Richard's purported appeal as of
right.
__________________

Donald L. Richard, pro se.
__________________

Per Curiam. We dismiss Richard's appeal. Richard did not file a timely
appeal from the February 28, 1995 court of appeals judgment revoking his in
forma pauperis status for the future filing of original actions in that court. See
S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(1).

Richard's Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment did not extend the
time for him to appeal the 1995 judgment. "A Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from
judgment cannot be used as a substitute for a timely appeal or as a means to extend
the time for perfecting an appeal from the original judgment." Key v. Mitchell
(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 89, 90-91, 689 N.E.2d 548, 549; State ex rel. Durkin v.
Ungaro (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 191, 192, 529 N.E.2d 1268, 1269. Richard's claims
concerning the propriety of the 1995 court of appeals judgment could have been
raised in a timely appeal from that judgment. And to the extent that Richard is

2

claiming newly discovered evidence to support his Civ.R. 60(B)(5) claim, Civ.R.
60(B)(5) cannot be used in this manner. Strack v. Pelton (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d
172, 174, 637 N.E.2d 914, 916.

Based on the foregoing, we dismiss Richard's appeal because it was not
properly perfected.
Appeal dismissed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

3