Helfrich v. Ward
| Decision Date | 12 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2020 CA 00028 |
| Parties | JAMES HELFRICH Relator v. JUDGE MICHAEL WARD Respondent |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
OPINION
For Relator
JAMES HELFRICH
P.O. Box 921
Pataskala, Ohio 43062
For Respondent
HONORABLE MICHAEL WARD
10 N. May Avenue
Athens, Ohio 45701
{¶1} On March 18, 2020, Relator, James Helfrich, filed a Writ of Prohibition against Respondent, Judge Michael Ward. Mr. Helfrich challenges various orders issued by Judge Ward with regard to Mr. Helfrich's status as a vexatious litigator.
{¶2} In 2011, the Licking County Common Pleas Court declared Mr. Helfrich a "vexatious litigator" under R.C. 2323.52. (Writ at ¶ 2) Following this finding, Judge Richard Markus, the presiding judge, filed guidelines with the Licking County Clerk regarding how Mr. Helfrich should proceed with the filing of cases in the future. (Id.) Mr. Helfrich alleges the instructions were not an entry or an order and since they were issued post-trial, he did not have an opportunity to appeal.1 (Id.) Among other things, these instructions require Mr. Helfrich to type his complaints and submit an affidavit with any Application to Proceed that is filed with the trial court opining the contents of the application are true and accurate. (Id. at ¶ 3)
{¶3} Mr. Helfrich further asserts for the past nine years he has been subjected to these rules and regulations that are not specifically provided for in the vexatious litigators' statute. (Id. at ¶ 4) He contends the typing and affidavit requirements are being used to deny valid complaints he seeks to file and once denied, the trial court orders the payment of court costs. (Id. at ¶ 2) However, if an Application to Proceed is granted Mr. Helfrich alleges Judge Ward does not impose court costs and instead imposes them in the matter that is allowed to proceed. (Id. at ¶ 5) Mr. Helfrich also alleges Judge Ward (Id.)
{¶4} Mr. Helfrich maintains he is entitled to a writ of prohibition because under the Ohio Revised Code, no language allows a trial court judge to assess court costs unless done so in a legal proceeding. (Id. at ¶ 6) He asserts an Application to Proceed is a screening process, not a legal proceeding. (Id. at ¶ 4) Thus, Mr. Helfrich concludes Judge Ward should be prohibited from ordering the clerk of courts to assess courts costs for Applications to Proceed that are denied. (Id. at ¶ 9)
{¶5} In addition to the relief he seeks regarding courts costs, Mr. Helfrich also reviews specific cases to support additional relief he requests against Judge Ward. Mr. Helfrich references an Application to Proceed against Ashton Cook he filed on August 20, 2019. (Id. at ¶ 10) Judge Ward denied the application on September 10, 2019 because he wanted to see the complete accident report and communications between Mr. Helfrich and his insurance carrier. (Id.) With Judge Ward requesting this additional information, Mr. Helfrich questions why he had to file an affidavit as to the accuracy of the complaint. (Id.) Mr. Helfrich points out Judge Ward also instructed him, in the September 10, 2019 entry, "to provide information regarding his efforts and intentions to pay any unpaid court costs." (Id. at ¶ 11)
{¶6} Mr. Helfrich subsequently provided the complete police report and his communications with his insurance carrier. (Id. at ¶ 12) Judge Ward granted Mr. Helfrich's Application to Proceed on September 30, 2019, and again ordered him to address the court costs issue. (Id.) Thereafter, Mr. Helfrich took Judge Ward's September 30, 2019 entry and wrote "NONE" across the top of the entry and filed it with the clerk. (Id. at ¶ 13).
{¶7} Another example provided by Mr. Helfrich concerns an eviction matter with Brittany Britt. He reviews the entire procedural history of this eviction proceeding at paragraphs 24-26 of the writ. With regard to evictions, Mr. Helfrich challenges two actions taken by Judge Ward. First, Mr. Helfrich challenges Judge Ward's order that requires him to post a three-day notice, wait for it to expire, and then wait 35 days before filing an Application to Proceed. (Id. at ¶ 15) Second, Mr. Helfrich challenges Judge Ward's requirement that he file an affidavit regarding where he posted the three-day notice on the property. (Id. at ¶ 16)
{¶8} Mr. Helfrich concludes his writ by requesting the following relief: (1) prohibit the trial court from modifying previous entries and assessing court costs; (2) prohibit the trial court from requiring affidavits; (3) prohibit the trial court from denying a summary proceeding until 35 days after he serves a three-day notice to file an Application to Proceed to start an eviction proceeding; (4) prohibit the trial court from ordering him to detail his attempts or intent to pay court costs; and (5) prohibit the trial court from arbitrarily modifying the intent of the vexatious litigators' statute. (Id. at ¶¶ 33-37)
{¶9} On April 8, 2020, Judge Ward filed a Motion to Dismiss Writ of Prohibition; Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Mr. Helfrich moved to strike Judge Ward's motion because it was not double-spaced as required by Loc.App.R. 9(C). We granted Judge Ward leave to file an amended motion in order to comply with the local rule, which he did on May 28, 2020.
{¶10} Judge Ward moved to dismiss Mr. Helfrich's Writ of Prohibition under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). The Ohio Supreme Court explained the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) standard in the context of prohibition relief in State ex rel. Conkle v. Sadler, 99 Ohio St.3d 402, 2003-Ohio-4124, 792 N.E.2d 1116, ¶ 8 (citations omitted):
The Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal of * * * [relator's] prohibition complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted [is] justified if, after presuming the truth of all factual allegations of the complaint and making all reasonable inferences in [relator's] favor, it appear[s] beyond doubt that [relator can] prove no set of facts entitling [him] to the requested extraordinary writ of prohibition.
{¶11} The requisites Mr. Helfrich must establish to be entitled to relief in prohibition are: (1) Judge Ward is about to exercise judicial power; (2) the exercise of judicial power by Judge Ward is unauthorized by law; and (3) there is no adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Largent v. Fisher, 43 Ohio St.3d 160, 161, 540 N.E.2d 239 (1989). Prohibition will not lie unless it clearly appears the court has no jurisdiction of the cause which it is attempting to adjudicate or the court is about to exceed its jurisdiction. State ex rel. Ellis v. McCabe, 138 Ohio St. 417, 35 N.E.2d 571 (1941), paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶12} Thus, absent an unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court having general jurisdiction of the subject matter of an action has authority to determine its own jurisdiction. A party challenging the court's jurisdiction has an adequate remedy at law by way of an appeal from the court's holding that it has jurisdiction. State ex rel. Rootstown Loc. School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Portage Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 78 Ohio St.3d 489, 491, 678 N.E.2d 1365 (1997); State ex rel. Bradford v. Trumbull Cty. Court, 64 Ohio St.3d 502, 504, 1992-Ohio-132, 597 N.E.2d 116.
{¶13} Further, this Court has discretion in issuing a writ of prohibition. State ex rel. Gilligan v. Hoddinott, 36 Ohio St.2d 127, 304 N.E.2d 382 (1973), paragraph one of the syllabus. "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." (Citations omitted.) State ex rel. Sparto v. Juvenile Court of Darke Cty., 153 Ohio St. 64, 65, 90 N.E.2d 598 (1950). The issuance of such a writ should be used with great caution and not issue in a doubtful case. State ex rel. Merion v. Court of Common Pleas Tuscarawas Cty., 137 Ohio St. 273, 277, 28 N.E.2d 641 (1940). However, when a court is patently and unambiguously without jurisdiction to act whatsoever, the availability or adequacy of a remedy is immaterial to the issuance of a writ of prohibition. State ex rel. Tilford v. Crush, 39 Ohio St.3d 174, 176, 529 N.E.2d 1245 (1988).
{¶14} We will address Mr. Helfrich's grounds for relief within the framework of the elements that must be established to be entitled to relief in prohibition.
{¶15} Judge Ward's exercise of judicial authority
{¶16} The first and second elements Mr. Helfrich must establish to be entitled to a writ of prohibition is that Judge Ward is about to exercise judicial power and his exercise of that power is unauthorized by law. Mr. Helfrich cannot satisfy the first element with regard to most of his claims for relief because the exercise of judicial power that he complains about has already occurred. Mr. Helfrich supports his arguments by referencing two cases in which he was or is presently involved. According to Mr. Helfrich, the eviction proceeding has concluded (Writ at ¶ 26) and the other case, a personal injury matter, presumably remains pending.
{¶17} In the context of these two cases, Judge Ward has already taken the action about which Mr. Helfrich complains. Judge Ward modified previous entries and assessed court costs (Writ at ¶ 32, January 16, 2020 Judgment Entry); required Mr. Helfrich to file affidavits to support his signature on a complaint (id. at ¶ 30, January 16, 2020 Judgment Entry); ordered Mr. Helfrich to wait 35 days after service of a three-day notice in an eviction proceeding to file an Application to Proceed (id., January 16, 2020 Judgment Entry); and ordered Mr. Helfrich to detail his attempts to pay court costs (id. at ¶ 11, September 10, 2019 Judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial