In re Disqualification of Rastatter, 996 N.E.2d 938

Defendant Ramon Boyce filed an affidavit under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Douglas M. Rastatter from Boyce’s pending postconviction-relief proceedings in Clark County Court of Common Pleas (Case No. 08-CR-612).
Boyce alleged Judge Rastatter had presided over four prior trials involving him (one reversed on appeal) and claimed the judge harbors a "predetermined hostile and fixed anticipatory feeling" toward him.
Boyce further alleged the judge made biased and insulting comments (including allegedly disrespecting Boyce’s mother) but provided no specific examples, transcripts, or other evidentiary support in the affidavit.
Judge Rastatter submitted a written response denying bias, noting the Ohio State Bar Association previously dismissed a grievance Boyce filed, and promising to decide the postconviction petition impartially based on law and evidence.
The court evaluated whether Boyce’s allegations met the statutory and caselaw standards to overcome the presumption of judicial impartiality and warrant disqualification.

Issue	Boyce's Argument	Rastatter's Argument	Held
Whether prior judicial involvement disqualifies judge from later proceedings	Prior adverse rulings and having presided over prior trials show predetermined hostility	Prior involvement alone does not prove bias; judge pledges impartiality	Prior involvement alone insufficient; disqualification denied
Whether alleged insulting or biased comments warrant disqualification	Judge made biased, insulting comments (including toward Boyce’s mother)	Allegations are vague and unsubstantiated; no transcripts or specifics provided	Vague, unsupported allegations fail to show actual bias
Whether appellate reversal implies judicial bias	Reversal demonstrates judge’s hostility or retaliation	Reversal does not presume bias; appellate errors do not equal ill will	Reversal on appeal does not imply bias or warrant disqualification
Whether disagreement with legal rulings is a basis for disqualification	Numerous adverse rulings demonstrate partiality	Disagreement with rulings is not a proper basis; legal error review is for appeals	Disagreement with rulings, without more, is not grounds for disqualification

State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214, 951 N.E.2d 381 (2011) (prior experience before a judge is a factor but does not alone prove bias)
In re Disqualification of O’Neill, 100 Ohio St.3d 1232, 798 N.E.2d 17 (2002) (defines "bias or prejudice" as hostile feeling or fixed anticipatory judgment)
In re Disqualification of Aubry, 117 Ohio St.3d 1245, 884 N.E.2d 1095 (2006) (judge who presided over earlier proceedings is not automatically disqualified)
In re Disqualification of Basinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 1237, 674 N.E.2d 351 (1996) (trial judge generally not disqualified from ruling on postconviction petitions)
In re Disqualification of Floyd, 135 Ohio St.3d 1249, 986 N.E.2d 10 (2012) (reversal by an appeals court does not imply future bias by trial judge)
In re Disqualification of Baronzzi, 135 Ohio St.3d 1212, 985 N.E.2d 494 (2012) (affiant must provide evidence beyond the affidavit to support allegations)
In re Disqualification of Walker, 36 Ohio St.3d 606, 522 N.E.2d 460 (1988) (vague, unsubstantiated allegations insufficient for disqualification)
In re Disqualification of Russo, 110 Ohio St.3d 1208, 850 N.E.2d 713 (2005) (errors in legal rulings are addressed by appellate review, not disqualification)
In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 1241, 798 N.E.2d 23 (2003) (disqualification is an extraordinary remedy; judge presumed impartial)

Decision: Affidavit of disqualification denied; case may proceed before Judge Rastatter.