JOHN FRANCE, RELATOR vs. LESLIE ANN CELEBREZZE, JUDGE, RESPONDENT
No. 98992
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
October 29, 2012
[Cite as France v. Celebrezze, 2012-Ohio-5085.]
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION; Order No. 459282
Writ of Prohibition
John France, pro se
6368 West MacLaurin Drive
Tampa, Florida 33647
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: David Lambert
Assistant County Prosecutor
8th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{¶1} John France, pro se, has filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition, through which he seeks to prevent Judge Leslie Ann Celebrezze from conducting a “show cause” hearing, on October 23, 2012, in France v. France, Cuyahoga D.R. No. DR-10-331762.1 For the following reasons, we sua sponte dismiss France‘s complaint for a writ of prohibition.
{¶2} Initially, we find that France has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of
{¶3} In order for this court to issue a writ of prohibition, France is required to demonstrate each prong of the following three-part test: (1) Judge Celebrezze is about to exercise judicial power; (2) the exercise of judicial power by Judge Celebrezze is not
{¶4} Prohibition does not lie unless it clearly appears that the court possesses no jurisdiction of the cause that 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). Also, prohibition will not issue to prevent an erroneous judgment, or serve the purpose of an appeal, or to correct errors committed by the lower court in deciding questions within its jurisdiction. State ex rel. Sparto v. Juvenile Crt. of Drake Cty., 153 Ohio St. 64, 90 N.E.2d 598 (1950). Furthermore, prohibition should be used with great caution and not issue in doubtful cases. State ex rel. Merion v. Tuscarawas Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 137 Ohio St. 273, 28 N.E.2d 273 (1940).
{¶5} Absent a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court possessing general jurisdiction of the subject matter of an action has the authority to determine its own jurisdiction. A party challenging the court‘s jurisdiction possesses an adequate remedy at law through an appeal from the court‘s judgment that it possesses jurisdiction. State ex rel. Rootstown Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Portage Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 78 Ohio St.3d 489, 678 N.E.2d 1363 (1997); State ex rel. Bradford v. Trumbull Cty. Court, 64 Ohio St.3d 502, 1992-Ohio-116, 597 N.E.2d 116. Finally, this court possesses discretion in issuing a writ of prohibition. State ex rel. Gilligan v. Hoddinott, 36 Ohio St.2d 127, 304 N.E.2d 382 (1973).
{¶6} In the case sub judice, we find that Judge Celebrezze possesses general subject matter jurisdiction to determine all domestic relations matters. Judge Celebrezze sits as an elected judge of the Domestic Relations Court of Cuyahoga County.
{¶7} Herein, France possesses or possessed an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Taking judicial notice of the docket per
{¶8} On August 30, 2012, Judge Celebrezze issued an order that provided that:
In support of the motion for directed verdict, the evidence introduced by defendant does not withstand the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that this court does not have jurisdiction over the minor children. Based on the aforesaid findings, the court has jurisdiction over the minor children of the marriage and shall proceed with the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.
{¶9} On September 6, 2012, Judge Celebrezze issued an order that provided that:
The court hereby grants in part plaintiff‘s motion to modify parenting time order. The court hereby denies defendant‘s motion to modify custody evaluation and finds the parties are to submit to an evaluation with Dr. Bardenstein within seven (7) days from the journalization of this order. The court hereby denies defendant‘s motion for relief from judgment as it fails to meet the GTE test as it does not offer a meritorious claim for relief. Plaintiff‘s motion for temporary allocation of parental rights and responsibilities and plaintiff‘s motion to modify existing order, plaintiff‘s motion to show cause shall be set for hearing on 10-23-12 at 9:30 a.m. It is ordered that the parenting time set forth in the judgment entry of 1-24-12 shall be and is modified O.S.J. Notice issued.
{¶10} The judgment of Judge Celebrezze, that she possesses jurisdiction to modify child custody and parental rights under the UCCJEA is subject or was subject to an appeal, which provides or provided France with an adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Hughley v. McMonagle, 121 Ohio St.3d 536, 2009-Ohio-1703, 905 N.E.2d 1220; State ex rel. Jaffal v. Calabrese, 105 Ohio St.3d 440, 2005-Ohio-2591, 828 N.E.2d 107. In addition, Judge Celebrezze possesses the basic statutory jurisdiction to issue orders with regard to parental rights and responsibilities and the enforcement of such orders vis-a-vis a show cause hearing. Also, Judge Celebrezze possesses the basic statutory
{¶11} Accordingly, we sua sponte dismiss France‘s complaint for a writ of prohibition. France to pay costs. It is further ordered that the clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and date of entry pursuant to
{¶12} Complaint dismissed.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR