State ex rel. Lisboa v. Fuerst
2012 Ohio 370
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Lisboa filed an original action seeking a writ of prohibition to stop future action on the pending indictment in State v. Lisboa, Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas No. CR-522757.
- He also sought a writ of mandamus to dismiss the pending indictment on speedy-trial grounds.
- The court sua sponte dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim entitled to relief.
- Prohibition cannot be used to challenge a defective indictment; remedies lie in a motion to dismiss and direct appeal if convicted.
- The speedy-trial claim is not cognizable in an extraordinary action, and accordingly fails.
- Lisboa was declared a vexatious litigator under Loc.App.R. 23, with filing restrictions and costs awarded to the state.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can prohibition/mandamus dismiss or block indictment? | Lisboa challenged via prohibition to halt indictment action. | Prohibition unavailable for defective indictment; remedies exist by dismissal/motion and appeal. | Not entitled to prohibition or mandamus relief. |
| Is speedy-trial denial cognizable in extraordinary action? | Speedy-trial denial supported by evidence in the underlying case. | Speedy-trial claim not cognizable in extraordinary action. | Speedy-trial claim not cognizable; complaint dismissed on this basis. |
| Whether Lisboa is a vexatious litigator and subject to filing restrictions? | Lisboa argues for the right to file; no unusual burden shown. | Lisboa habitually engages in frivolous actions; warrants designation as vexatious. | Lisboa declared vexatious litigator; filing restrictions imposed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Bandarapalli v. Gallagher, 128 Ohio St.3d 314 (2011-Ohio-230) (prohibition not available to cure defective indictments; remedies lie in dismissal/appeal)
- State ex rel. Parker v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 61 Ohio St.2d 351 (1980) (recognizes ordinary-law avenues to challenge indictments)
- State ex rel. Barr v. Pittman, 127 Ohio St.3d 32 (2010-Ohio-4989) (speedy-trial claim not cognizable in extraordinary action)
- State ex rel. Jackim v. Ambrose, 118 Ohio St.3d 512 (2008-Ohio-4989) (speedy-trial claim not cognizable in extraordinary action)
- State ex rel. Peeples v. Anderson, 73 Ohio St.3d 559 (1995-Ohio-335) (standard for vexatious litigator designation and costs)