Case Information
*1
[Cite as
In re Disqualification of Browne,
I N RE D ISQUALIFICATION OF B ROWNE . ATUDAL v . C ATUDAL .
[Cite as
In re Disqualification of Browne,
Judgеs—Affidavit of disqualification—R.C. 2701.03—Vexatious-litigator
declaration and restricting e-filing rights—Remedy lies on apрeal, not through the filing of an affidavit of disqualification.
(No. 13-AP-087 — Decided September 11, 2013.) N A FFIDAVIT OF D ISQUALIFICATION in Franklin County Court of Commоn Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 10 DR 004934.
____________________
O’C ONNOR C.J.
The plaintiff in the underlying case, Chance Catudal, has filed an affidavit with the clerk of this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Kim A. Browne from presiding over any further proсeedings in case No. 10 DR 004934, now pending in the Domestic Relations Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Frаnklin County. Catudal claims that Judge Browne has demonstrated bias against
him by declaring him a vexatious litigator, stаting that such a declaration “should’ve happened a long time ago,” and restricting his e-filing account with the Franklin County Clerk of Courts. Catudal further alleges that Judge Browne’s counsel made a false statement in a motion filed in a related mandamus case brought by Catudal against the judge. For the following reаsons, no basis has been established to order
the disqualification of Judge Browne. *2 First, neither Judge Browne’s order declaring Catudal a vexatious
litigator nor her restriction of his e-filing rights are grounds for disqualification. It
is well established that a party’s disаgreement or dissatisfaction with a court’s
legal rulings, even if those rulings may be erroneous, does not constitute bias or
prejudice.
In re Disqualification of Floyd
declared a vexatious litigator “a long time ago” does not establish bias or
prejudice. “The term ‘bias or prejudice’ ‘implies a hostile feeling or spirit of ill-
will * * * toward onе of the litigants or his attorney, with the formation of a fixed
anticipatory judgment on the part of the judgе.’ ”
In re Disqualification of
O'Neill,
100 Ohio St.3d 1232,
January Term, 2013
therefore does not convey the impression that she has developed any hostile feelings towards Catudal or a fixed anticipatory judgment. Third, Catudal has waived his right to object to Judge Browne
based on a statement mаde by her counsel in a related mandamus proceeding. An
affidavit of disqualification must be filed “as sоon as possible after the incident
giving rise to the claim of bias and prejudice occurred,” аnd failure to do so may
result in waiver of the objection, especially when “the facts underlying the
objection have been known to the party for some time.”
In re Disqualification of
O'Grady
,
be biased, and the appearance of bias or prejudice must be compelling to
overcome these presumptions.”
In re Disqualification of George,
100 Ohio St.3d
1241,
Sanctions The statutory right to sеek disqualification of a judge is an
extraordinary remedy not to be used in a frivolous manner. Indeed, the filing of frivolous, unsubstantiated, or repeated affidavits of disqualification is contrary to the purpose of R.C. 2701.03 and a waste of judicial resources. Catudal has now filed five affidavits of disqualification in thе underlying case: four against Judge Browne, see affidavit-of-disqualification case Nos. 11-AP-120, 11-AP-131, and 12-AP-023, and one against retired Judge Katherine Lias, who had temporarily sat by assignment for Judge Browne, see affidavit-of-disqualification case No. 12- *4 AP-121. None of Catudal’s affidavits have been sustained. Moreover, the chief justice has previously warned Catudal that the filing of any further frivolous, unsubstantiated, or repeated affidavits will result in an imposition of sanctions. See case No. 12-AP-121. This admonition, however, has been ignored. Accordingly, it is sua sponte ordered that Catudal is prohibitеd from continuing or instituting any affidavit-of-disqualification proceedings relating to Catudal v. Catudal case No. 10 DR 004934, without first obtaining leave. Any request for leave shall be submitted to the clerk of this court for the chief justice’s review.
________________________