State ex rel. Cosavage v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 27, 2026
• Docket: 31811
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Cosavage v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2026-Ohio-1940.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE OF OHIO EX REL. FLOYD J. COSAVAGE, JR.

Relator C.A. No. 31811 v.

SUMMIT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS

Respondent

Dated: May 27, 2026

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} Relator, Floyd Cosavage, Jr., has petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus

against Respondent, the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. He seeks to compel the court

to adjudicate jurisdictional challenges he allegedly raised in a criminal matter.

{¶2} Upon review of the complaint, this Court concludes that the complaint must be sua

sponte dismissed because “the claimant obviously cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the

complaint.” State ex rel. Scott v. Cleveland, 2006-Ohio-6573, ¶ 14. The only named respondent

in the complaint is the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. “[A] court of common pleas is

not a proper respondent in a mandamus action.” State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs.,

2021-Ohio-2374, ¶ 26. That is because “[a] court is not sui juris and, absent express statutory

authority, can neither sue nor be sued in its own right.” Id., citing State ex rel. Cleveland Mun.

Court v. Cleveland City Council, 34 Ohio St.2d 120, 121 (1973). Mr. Cosavage has not identified 2

any statutory authority that would allow a court of common pleas to be sued in mandamus or

otherwise, so his complaint is subject to dismissal. See Krouskoupf v. Muskingum Cty. Common

Pleas Court, 2025-Ohio-585, ¶ 11.

{¶3} This Court also would note that Mr. Cosavage never paid a cost deposit at the time

of filing his original action. See Loc.R. 3.1(B). Loc.R. 3.1 requires a relator to pay a deposit or

seek a waiver of that deposit when filing an original action. Although Mr. Cosavage filed an

affidavit of indigency, he did not use the form/affidavit of indigency approved by the Ohio Public

Defender’s Office. See Loc.R. 3.1(C)(1). Moreover, the declaration he included in his filing is

not notarized, so it does not constitute an affidavit. See State ex rel. Reeves at ¶ 3. Accordingly,

Mr. Cosavage failed to comply with Loc.R. 3.1 when he filed his petition.

{¶4} Mr. Cosavage’s petition is dismissed. Costs of this action are taxed to Mr.

Cosavage. The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default notice of

this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See Civ.R. 58(B).

JILL FLAGG LANZINGER FOR THE COURT

SUTTON, J. STEVENSON, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

FLOYD J. COSAVAGE, JR., Pro Se, for Relator.