Johnson v. O'Donnell

2025 Ohio 2782

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 5, 2025
• Docket: 115397
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Johnson v. O'Donnell, 2025-Ohio-2782.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STEPHEN-E: JOHNSON, :

Relator, : No. 115397 v. :

DEANNA O’DONNELL, :

Respondent. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED DATED: August 5, 2025

Writ of Prohibition Order No. 586817

Appearances:

Stephen-E: Johnson, pro se.

Scott Tuma, Chief Prosecutor and Law Director for City of Parma, for respondent.

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, A.J.:

On August 4, 2025 the relator, Stephen-E: Johnson, commenced this

prohibition action against the respondent, Judge Deanna O’Donnell of the Parma

Municipal Court, to prohibit the judge from proceeding to trial on August 6, 2025,

in the underlying case, State of Ohio/City of Parma v. Stephen Johnson, Parma Muni. Ct. Case No. 25TRD09671, in which he is charged with shortcutting through

a parking lot, a minor misdemeanor. He argues that the judge’s failure to rule on

his pretrial motions, including a motion for discovery and a motion to suppress as

well as objections to trial setting without mutual agreement must prevent the trial.

For the following reasons, this court denies the application for a writ of prohibition,

sua sponte.

The principles governing prohibition are well established. Its

requisites are (1) the respondent against whom it is sought is about to exercise

judicial power, (2) the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law, and (3) there

is no adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Largent v. Fisher, 43 Ohio St.3d 160

(1989). Prohibition will not lie unless it clearly appears that the court has no

jurisdiction of the cause that it is attempting to adjudicate or the court is about to

exceed its jurisdiction. State ex rel. Ellis v. McCabe, 138 Ohio St. 417 (1941),

paragraph three of the syllabus. Prohibition will not lie if the court has basic

statutory jurisdiction and appeal is available. State ex rel. Adams v. Gusweiler, 30

Ohio St.2d 326 (1972) and State ex rel. Pruitt v. Donnelly, 2011-Ohio-1252 (8th

Dist.). “The writ will not issue to prevent an erroneous judgment, or to serve the

purpose of appeal, or to correct mistakes of the lower court in deciding questions

within its jurisdiction.” State ex rel. Sparto v. Juvenile Court of Darke Cty., 153

Ohio St. 64, 65 (1950). Furthermore, it should be used with great caution and not

issue in a doubtful case. State ex rel. Merion v. Tuscarawas Cty. Court of Common

Pleas, 137 Ohio St. 273 (1940). A party challenging the court’s jurisdiction has an adequate remedy at law via an appeal from the court’s holding that it has

jurisdiction. State ex rel. Rootstown Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Portage Cty.

Court of Common Pleas, 78 Ohio St.3d 489 (1997). Moreover, this court has

discretion in issuing the writ of prohibition. State ex rel. Gilligan v. Hoddinott, 36

Ohio St.2d 127 (1973).

In the present case, the municipal court and the respondent judge

have basic statutory jurisdiction to hear misdemeanor cases pursuant to R.C.

1901.20. Johnson has not cited any authority that the failure to rule on pretrial

motions before trial deprives the respondent of jurisdiction. An error, if any, by the

failure to rule on a motion is remediable on appeal thus precluding a writ of

prohibition.

Accordingly, this court denies the application for a writ of prohibition,

sua sponte. Relator to pay costs. This court directs the clerk of courts to serve all

parties notice of the judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required by

Civ.R. 58(B).

Writ denied.

______________________________________ EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

MARY J. BOYLE, J., and LISA B. FORBES, J., CONCUR