State ex rel. Alexander v. Howe

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 8, 2026
• Docket: L-26-00114
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Alexander v. Howe, 2026-Ohio-1683.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY

State ex rel. Reginald Bernard Court of Appeals No. L-26-00114 Alexander

Relator

v.

Timothy J. Howe DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Respondent Decided: May 8, 2026

*****

SULEK, J.

{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on the petition of relator Reginald Bernard

Alexander for (1) a writ of prohibition seeking to prohibit respondent Hon. Timothy C.

Howe1 from enforcing a bench warrant, and (2) a writ of mandamus to compel Judge

1 “Timothy C. Howe” is not a judge in Lucas County. This court presumes that Alexander is referring to Hon. Joseph J. Howe, judge of the Toledo Housing and Environmental Court. Howe to dismiss the cases against him. Because Alexander obviously cannot prevail on

the facts alleged, this petition is sua sponte dismissed.

I. Facts and Procedural Background

{¶ 2} Alexander is the defendant in two cases before Judge Howe in the Toledo

Housing Court. In both cases, case No. CRB-10494-0102 and case No. CRB-10494-

0202, housing complaints charged him with failure to comply with an order to abate a

public nuisance in violation of Toledo Municipal Code 1726.08(a), misdemeanors of the

first degree.

{¶ 3} Relevant here, both complaints contain two file stamps: one dated January

5, 2025, and the other dated December 5, 2025. The January 5, 2025 file stamp has

another stamp overlaying it stating “FILED IN ERROR.” In addition, both complaints

charged “Reggie Alexander” and listed his birthdate as May 19, 1962.

{¶ 4} The docket attached to Alexander’s petition reflects that Alexander was

summoned to appear before the housing court on January 14, 2026. He did not appear.

The housing court then ordered him to appear on February 17, 2026. Prior to that date,

Alexander filed numerous documents with the housing court on February 13, 2026. He,

however, did not appear before the housing court on February 17, 2026, and a bench

warrant was issued.

{¶ 5} On March 12, 2026, Alexander filed a “Notice of Fault and Opportunity to

Cure” in which he proclaimed that the housing court was in administrative fault. He

referenced his February 13, 2026 filings in which he alleged that the complaints were

void because of the “Jan 5 ‘ERROR’ stamp” and because they listed a false name and

2. date of birth. He warned the trial court that if it did not remove the warrant within 48

hours and dismiss the cases against him, “formal complaints and evidence packets”

would be sent to the “IRS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION (CID),” “SEC

WHISTLEBLOWER OFFICE,” “FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (FTC),” “FBI

TOLEDO RESIDENT AGENCY,” and the “OHIO STATE AUDITOR.”

{¶ 6} The next day, March 13, 2026, the housing court entered on the docket, “No

action taken as to defendant filings. No motion filed or plea entered. Bench warrant to

stand. Defendant must appear in-person or via counsel to remove bench warrant.”

{¶ 7} Thereafter, on April 15, 2026, Alexander filed a “MOTION TO QUASH

AND NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENT.” The housing court denied his motion to quash

that same day, and ordered “Bench Warrant to stand see 3/12 entry.”

On April 22, 2026, Alexander filed his present complaint for writs of prohibition

and mandamus in this court.

II. Analysis

{¶ 8} To be entitled to a writ of prohibition, Alexander must show that “(1) the

trial court has exercised judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power was unauthorized

by law, and (3) denying the writ would result in injury for which no other adequate

remedy exists in the ordinary course of the law.” State ex rel. Boyd v. Tone, 2023-Ohio-

3832, ¶ 11. To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, he must show “(1) a clear legal right to

the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of the respondent to provide it, and

(3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” Id. at ¶ 10.

3. {¶ 9} “A court of appeals may dismiss a complaint sua sponte ‘if the complaint “is

frivolous or the claimant obviously cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the

complaint.”’” Id. at ¶ 9, quoting State ex rel. Kerr v. Pollex, 2020-Ohio-411, ¶ 5, quoting

State ex rel. Scott v. Cleveland, 2006-Ohio-6573, ¶ 14. “Such a dismissal is appropriate

only if, after presuming the truth of all material factual allegations of the petition and

making all reasonable inferences in the claimant’s favor, it appears beyond doubt that the

claimant can prove no set of facts entitling him to the requested extraordinary relief.” Id.,

quoting Kerr at ¶ 5.

{¶ 10} Upon review, Alexander obviously cannot prevail on the facts alleged in

the complaint. Alexander takes issue with two alleged defects in the housing complaints:

(1) the January 5, 2025 file stamp, and (2) the incorrect date of birth. To the extent that

either of those are defects, they are technical defects that do not affect the jurisdiction of

the housing court.

{¶ 11} “The filing of a complaint invokes the jurisdiction of the municipal court.”

State v. Mbodji, 2011-Ohio-2880, ¶ 12. “Crim.R. 3 defines what constitutes a valid

complaint. It states, ‘The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts

constituting the offense charged.’ In addition, the rule requires that the complaint ‘state

the numerical designation of the applicable statute or ordinance’ and that it ‘be made

upon oath before any person authorized by law to administer oaths.’” Id.

{¶ 12} Here, the complaint in case No. CRB-25-10494-0102 listed the facts of the

offense as Alexander was ordered to “Cut tall grass & weeds (overgrowth). Remove

junk, debris, trash, litter, auto parts, brush, graffiti and inoperable/unlicensed vehicle(s)

4. including trailers,” and he failed to do so within the 72 hours granted in the order. In case

No. CRB-25-10494-0202, the facts were described as Alexander was ordered to

“Repair/replace doors, roofing, windows and gutters/spouts on building. Scrape & paint

all exposed wood on building,” and he failed to do so within the 30 days granted in the

order. Both complaints stated the numerical designation of the applicable ordinance as

Toledo Municipal Code 1726.08(a). Further, both complaints were sworn to and

subscribed in the presence of the Toledo Municipal Court Deputy Clerk on December 5,

2025.

{¶ 13} The complaints, therefore, meet all the essential requirements of Crim.R. 3.

Any defects regarding the file stamp or incorrect date of birth do not impact the

jurisdiction of the housing court. See Middletown v. Goldberg, 2017-Ohio-788, ¶ 14

(12th Dist.) (complaint properly invoked jurisdiction where although it was not notarized

it satisfied the requirements of Crim.R. 3); State v. Oree, 1996 WL 205586, *1, fn. 1

(11th Dist. Apr. 5, 1996) (noting that although complaint was incorrectly date-stamped, it

clearly indicated when the offense occurred and provided the defendant “with sufficient

and adequate notice of the charge”).

III. Conclusion

{¶ 14} Accordingly, because the complaints properly invoked the jurisdiction of

the housing court, Alexander can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief in

prohibition or mandamus. His petition is not well-taken and is hereby dismissed. Costs

of this action are assessed to Alexander.

5. {¶ 15} The clerk of court is directed to serve upon all parties, within three days, a

copy of this decision in a manner prescribed by Civ.R. 5(B).

It is so ordered.

Writ dismissed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, P.J. JUDGE

Christine E. Mayle, J. JUDGE

Charles E. Sulek, J. CONCUR. JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

6.