State ex rel. Williams v. Trim, 2014–0899.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: 145 Ohio St.3d 204,48 N.E.3d 501,2015 Ohio 3372
• Parties: The STATE ex rel. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. TRIM, Warden, Appellee.
• Docket Number: No. 2014–0899.,2014–0899.
• Decision Date: 25 August 2015

145 Ohio St.3d 204
48 N.E.3d 501
2015 Ohio 3372

The STATE ex rel. WILLIAMS, Appellant,
v.
TRIM, Warden, Appellee.

No. 2014–0899.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted April 14, 2015.
Decided Aug. 25, 2015.

48 N.E.3d 502

Agatha Martin Williams, pro se.

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Mindy Worly, Principal Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

145 Ohio St.3d 204

{¶ 1} We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand this appeal of an original action, to allow briefing and consideration of the mandamus claim of appellant, Agatha Martin Williams. Williams, an inmate, objects to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction's attachment of money in her prison account because the money originated from a pension, and she claims that the money is therefore exempt from garnishment or attachment under R.C. 2329.66.

{¶ 2} In her complaint below, Williams sought several different forms of relief, including an injunction, a writ of prohibition, and a writ of mandamus. Following a preliminary motion below, the court of appeals, without notice, dismissed Williams's entire case. The court of appeals correctly dismissed most of Williams's complaint, even without notice. However, her mandamus claims regarding, among other things, the exempt status of the pension money placed in her prison account should not have been dismissed. Rather, the court should have given her notice that it intended to consider her mandamus claims and allowed her to brief the issues before deciding the merits.

{¶ 3} Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the court of appeals to allow Williams to brief her mandamus claims before the court of appeals decides them on the merits.

Facts

{¶ 4} Williams was convicted in Stark County on various counts of theft, grand theft, and forgery. She is serving a 102–month sentence at the Ohio Reformatory for Women.

{¶ 5} Williams is the beneficiary of a lifetime pension benefit from the Timken Company, based on a qualified domestic-relations order, and she began receiving

48 N.E.3d 503

145 Ohio St.3d 205

$412.18 per month on March 1, 2011. Williams alleges that the benefit is deposited directly into a checking account that she holds jointly with her adult daughter, who occasionally transfers a portion of the funds from the checking account into Williams's prison account.

{¶ 6} In December 2012, Williams was served with a court order to pay an obligation. The sentencing judgment in her criminal conviction ordered her to pay restitution in the amount of $166,354.94 and a fine of $27,500. Williams went through the allowed prison procedures to object to the attachment of the funds in her prison account, claiming that they were pension benefits exempt from garnishment under R.C. 2329.66. Nevertheless, a hold was placed on her prison account.

{¶ 7} Williams completed the inmate grievance process regarding her objection to the collection of her funds. This and other grievances were ultimately denied. She claims that the business office placed her account on legal-hold status and allowed her only $25 per month to spend at the commissary and that starting in January 2013, everything greater than that amount was garnished and sent to the Stark County Clerk of Courts.

{¶ 8} In her complaint before the court of appeals, Williams sought injunctive relief, a writ of prohibition, and a writ of mandamus ordering the warden to exempt the funds in Williams's account from attachment or garnishment.

{¶ 9} The warden filed an answer to the complaint. Approximately three weeks later, Williams filed a one-page motion seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, with no memorandum in support. The warden filed a memorandum in opposition. Williams did not reply. Based on these pleadings alone, the court of appeals dismissed the case in its entirety. Williams appealed to this court.

Analysis

{¶ 10} We apply an abuse-of-discretion standard when reviewing an appellate court's decision to deny a writ of mandamus. State ex rel. Mun. Constr. Equip. Operators' Labor Council v. Cleveland, 141 Ohio St.3d 113, 2014-Ohio-4364, 22 N.E.3d 1040, ¶ 24, citing State ex rel. Nese v. State Teachers Retirement Bd. of Ohio, 136 Ohio St.3d 103, 2013-Ohio-1777, 991 N.E.2d 218, ¶ 55.

{¶ 11} Sua sponte dismissal of a case on the merits without notice is warranted only " ‘when a complaint is frivolous or the claimant obviously cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint.’ " State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ronan, 124 Ohio St.3d 17, 2009-Ohio-5947, 918 N.E.2d 515, ¶ 3, quoting State ex rel. Scott v. Cleveland, 112 Ohio St.3d 324, 2006-Ohio-6573, 859 N.E.2d 923, ¶ 14, and citing State ex rel. Duran v. Kelsey, 106 Ohio St.3d 58, 2005-Ohio-3674, 831 N.E.2d 430, ¶ 7.

145 Ohio St.3d 206

Sua sponte dismissal of injunction and prohibition claims

{¶ 12} The court of appeals correctly dismissed Williams's claims for injunctive relief. A court of appeals lacks original jurisdiction to grant prohibitory injunctions. State ex rel. Crabtree v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Health, 77 Ohio St.3d 247, 248, 673 N.E.2d 1281 (1997). "Neither [the Supreme Court] nor a court of appeals has original jurisdiction in prohibitory injunction." Id ., citing State ex rel. Governor v. Taft, 71 Ohio St.3d 1, 3, 640 N.E.2d 1136 (1994), and State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm ., 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631 (1967), paragraph four of the syllabus. Because Williams "obviously cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint" with regard to injunctive relief, the court below was correct in dismissing this part of her complaint, even

48 N.E.3d 504

without notice. See Ronan, 124 Ohio St.3d 17, 2009-Ohio-5947, 918 N.E.2d 515, at ¶ 3.

{¶ 13} The court of appeals also correctly held, even without notice, that Williams obviously cannot prevail on her claim for a writ of prohibition. To be entitled to the requested writ of prohibition, Williams must establish that (1) the warden is about to or has exercised judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) denying the writ would result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Bell v. Pfeiffer, 131 Ohio St.3d 114, 2012-Ohio-54, 961 N.E.2d 181, ¶ 18, 23 ; State ex rel. Miller v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 130 Ohio St.3d 24, 2011-Ohio-4623, 955 N.E.2d 379, ¶ 12. The last two elements may be established by showing that the respondent who is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Oil & Gas Comm ., 135 Ohio St.3d 204...