The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that the city of East Cleveland must pay more than $30 million for unlawfully arresting a man, beating him, and confining him in a storage closet for four days.

In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court required East Cleveland to pay or arrange to pay Arnold Black, who won a $20 million verdict against the city in August 2019. Black sought a writ of mandamus from the Court to force the city to pay the verdict plus interest after the city refused to respond to his requests.

The decision requires East Cleveland to pay more than $10 million in prejudgment and postjudgment interest, which is still accumulating.

Police Admit to False Arrest
In April 2012, Black was arrested during a traffic stop, even though the officers admitted there was no legitimate reason for stopping Black because he had not committed a crime. Detective Randy Hicks began questioning Black about who sells drugs in the city, and when Black responded he did not know, Hicks struck Black in the face and head.

Black was transported to the East Cleveland jail, where he was placed in a “holding cell,” which was a storage room containing a wooden bench, storage lockers, and cleaning supplies. The room had no bed or toilet. Black was kept in the storage room for four days.

Black filed a lawsuit against Hicks, the police chief, and the city in 2014. A jury trial began in 2016 but was delayed by several legal challenges from the city. After a second jury trial, a jury in August 2019 found the city and the officers liable for $20 million in damages. The court also ordered the city to pay $5.2 million in prejudgment interest.

The city appealed the judgment to the Eighth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision in 2020. The Supreme Court of Ohio and the U.S. Supreme Court declined the city’s request to review the case.

City Ignores Request for Payment  
In 2021, Black’s attorney sent the city a certified letter requesting it pay the judgment. The city did not respond. In February 2023, Black sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to compel the city to pay or to follow the procedures in R.C. 2744.06 to set up a payment plan. Black estimated as of August 2023, he was entitled to $30.4 million when postjudgment interest was factored into the trial court’s judgment.

In today’s opinion, the Court noted its 2023 State ex rel. Hunt v. E. Cleveland decision ordered East Cleveland to pay more than $12 million to two citizens struck by a police cruiser in 2017. In the Hunt case and Black’s case, a court issued a judgment against the city, finding it liable. R.C. 2744.06(A) requires the city to pay the judgment, the opinion stated.

The city argued Black was not entitled to the writ because the city had filed a motion with the trial court, arguing that under the damages cap in R.C. 2744.05(C)(1), the amount owed should be reduced to $250,000. Because the motion is still pending, the amount owed to Black is uncertain, and the Court cannot compel the city to pay him, the city maintained.

The opinion stated that Black had to prove with certainty the amount owed to him and that he provided “sufficient evidence to establish the exact amount” owed. Black provided the jury’s calculations, the trial court judgment, the trial court’s order to pay prejudgment interest, and the Eighth District’s judgment affirming the jury verdict and award.

“The city’s argument in opposition is incorrect, and we reject it,” the opinion stated.

The Court order may now be higher than Black estimated in August 2023. The Court directed East Cleveland to pay the judgment, prejudgment interest, and all postjudgment interest accumulating since the August 2019 trial court verdict.

2023-0244. State ex rel. Black v. E. Cleveland, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-2688.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat^® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.