IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF D‘APOLITO. GRENGA v. VANTELL.
No. 14-AP-019
Supreme Court of Ohio
March 19, 2014
139 Ohio St.3d 1230, 2014-Ohio-2153
O‘CONNOR, C.J.
O‘CONNOR, C.J.
{11} Plaintiff Joseph Robert Grenga has filed an affidavit with the clerk of this court under
{12} For the reasons explained below, no basis has been established to order the disqualification of Judge D‘Apolito.
Case No. 2008CV00388
{13} Grenga claims that at a pretrial hearing in case No. 2008CV00388, Judge D‘Apolito showed bias towards him by threatening him with contempt and bringing a deputy sheriff into the courtroom to intimidate him.
Case No. 2012CV01153
{14} In case No. 2012CV01153, Judge D‘Apolito issued an entry in January 2014 that (1) granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Jason A. Vantell on Grenga‘s claims, (2) granted summary judgment in favor of Vantell on his counterclaim for defamation against Grenga, and (3) sustained Vantell‘s motion for sanctions based on frivolous conduct against Grenga. The gravamen of Grenga‘s affidavit of disqualification is that the judge‘s recent entry “reeks with bias” against Grenga because “[t]here is not one point in Honorable Judge Lou A. D‘Apolito‘s Entry that has merit.” Grenga challenges the validity of the entry on several grounds and concludes that a “rational objective observer that read the Entry could only see the bias and prejudice in every sentence thereof.” Id. at ¶ 40.
{15} It is the role of a judge to resolve difficult questions in contentious matters, and therefore judges often disappoint some or all of the parties involved in litigation. However, it is well established that “[a]dverse rulings, without more, are not evidence that a judge is biased or prejudiced.” In re Disqualification of Russo, 110 Ohio St.3d 1208, 2005-Ohio-7146, 850 N.E.2d 713, ¶ 5. Accordingly, affidavits of disqualification cannot be used to remove a judge from a case simply because a party is particularly unhappy about a court ruling or a series of rulings. “Procedures exists by which appellate courts may review—and, if necessary, correct—rulings made by trial courts.” Id. at ¶ 6. However, reviewing legal errors is not the role of the chief justice in deciding affidavits of disqualification, and “neither a party‘s disagreement with a judge‘s determination, nor its dissatisfaction with a particular result, can supply the evidentiary showing needed to so reflect upon a judge‘s partiality as to mandate judicial disqualification.” Flamm, Judicial Disqualification, Section 16.2, 445-446 (2d Ed.2007).
{16} For the reasons stated above, the affidavit of disqualification is denied. The cases may proceed before Judge D‘Apolito.