Sizemore v. Farm Credit Services of Mid-America
986 N.E.2d 993
Ohio2013Background
- Sizemore filed an affidavit under R.C. 2701.03 to disqualify Judge Pokorny in Ashland County Case No. 11-CIV-371.
- Judge Forsthoefel recused himself after Sizemore’s federal suit against him; Pokorny was assigned.
- Sizemore alleges four grounds: attempted federal naming of Pokorny, conspiracy with Forsthoefel and Melick, bias against women/pro se litigants, and vexatious-litigator hearing.
- Affidavit challenges are narrow and require substantiation beyond mere allegations; the record showed no clear bias or collusion.
- The court concluded the letter from Forsthoefel merely notified scheduling and did not prove conspiracy; scheduling a hearing is not disqualifying.
- Disqualification denied; judge may proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether naming Pokorny in federal suit requires disqualification | Sizemore arguing automatic disqualification | No automatic disqualification for filing against judge | No automatic grounds to disqualify Pokorny |
| Whether there is a conspiracy between Pokorny, Forsthoefel, and Melick | Conspiracy shown by letters and conduct | Allegations are vague and unsupported | Insufficient evidence of conspiracy |
| Whether Pokorny is biased against women and pro se litigants | Evidence of bias | Bias not proven by clear evidence | Bias not established by clear evidence |
| Whether scheduling a hearing on the summary-judgment motion indicates bias | Scheduling violates rights and rules | Scheduling is within judicial discretion | Not grounds for disqualification |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disqualification of Hunter, 36 Ohio St.3d 607 (1988) (disqualification not warranted solely because opponent sues judge)
- In re Disqualification of Kilpatrick, 47 Ohio St.3d 605 (1989) (avoid gamesmanship; automatic disqualification not favored)
- In re Disqualification of DeWine, 2012-Ohio-6288 (2012) (burden to submit supporting evidence beyond the affidavit)
- In re Disqualification of Walker, 36 Ohio St.3d 606 (1988) (vague or unsubstantiated allegations insufficient)
- In re Disqualification of Cunningham, 100 Ohio St.3d 1216 (2002) (clear evidence required for bias claims)
- In re Disqualification of Flanagan, 127 Ohio St.3d 1236 (2009) (innocuous or speculative bias claims insufficient)
- In re Disqualification of Eyster, 105 Ohio St.3d 1246 (2004) (discretionary rulings not grounds for disqualification)
- In re Disqualification of Russo, 110 Ohio St.3d 1208 (2005) (disqualification limited to bias or disqualifying interest)
- In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 1241 (2003) (presumption of impartiality; appearance must be compelling)
- In re Disqualification of Kate, 88 Ohio St.3d 1209 (1999) (limits for disqualification proceedings)