Black v. Ashland Cty. Prosecutor's Office , 2012 Ohio 1306 ( 2012 )

[Cite as Black v. Ashland Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 2012-Ohio-1306.]
COURT OF APPEALS
ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
JAMES BLACK : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.
Petitioner : Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
-vs- :
:
ASHLAND COUNTY : Case No. 2011-CA-054
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE :
:
Respondent : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Prohibition
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 26, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Petitioner For Respondent
JAMES BLACK PRO SE RAMONA FRANCESCONI ROGERS
Ashland County Prosecutor
BY MICHAEL D. DONATINI
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
110 Cottage St., Third Floor
Ashland, OH 44805
[Cite as Black v. Ashland Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 2012-Ohio-1306.]
Gwin, J.
{1} Petitioner, James Black, has filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition which
he has moved to amend to include a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Respondent has filed a
Motion to Dismiss urging this Court to find Petitioner has named an improper
Respondent and Petitioner has an adequate remedy at law.
{2} In order for a writ of prohibition to issue, petitioner must prove that: (1) the
lower court is about to exercise judicial authority; (2) the exercise of authority is not
authorized by law; and, (3) the petitioner has no other adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law if a writ of prohibition is denied. State ex rel. Keenan v. Calabrese (1994),
69 Ohio St.3d 176, 178, 631 N.E.2d 119. A writ of prohibition, regarding the
unauthorized exercise of judicial power, will only be granted where the judicial officer's
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is patent and unambiguous. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Serv.,
Office of Collective Bargaining v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1990), 54 Ohio St.3d 48,
562 N.E.2d 125. State ex rel. Daniels v. Harris, 2008 WL 5197131, 1 (Ohio App. 5
Dist.).
{3} The named Respondent in this case is the Ashland County Prosecutor. A
writ of prohibition is used to limit judicial authority. The Ashland County Prosecutor
does not have judicial authority, therefore, prohibition cannot lie to prevent the Ashland
County Prosecutor from acting.
{4} With regard to Petitioner’s habeas corpus claim, Petitioner has also failed
to name a proper respondent. See Tate v. Bernard (Nov. 21, 2001), Trumbull App. No.
2001–T–0087, 2001 WL 1497206 (“the writ will lie only against the individual who is
directly responsible for keeping the petitioner in custody”); Jackson v. State (Apr. 19,
Ashland County, Case No. 2011-CA-054 3
2002), Cuyahoga App. No. 81007, 2002 WL 737495 (dismissal of petition for writ of
habeas corpus appropriate when petitioner named the state rather than the sheriff—his
custodian as the respondent). Petitioner has named the Ashland County Prosecutor
rather than the warden or sheriff who is responsible for keeping Petitioner in custody.
{5} Because neither prohibition nor habeas corpus lie against the named
Respondent, the petition is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.
By Gwin, J.,
Delaney, P.J., and
Edwards, J., concur
_________________________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
_________________________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
_________________________________
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
WSG:clw 0315
[Cite as Black v. Ashland Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 2012-Ohio-1306.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JAMES BLACK :
:
Petitioner :
:
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
ASHLAND COUNTY :
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE :
:
:
Respondent : CASE NO. 2011-CA-054
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the petition is
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
_________________________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
_________________________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
_________________________________
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS