Case Information
*1 [Cite as State ex rel. Bristow v. Windsor , 2017-Ohio-6879.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAWRENCE COUNTY : The State of Ohio ex rel.
Lonny Bristow, :
: Relator, : Case No. 17CA9 :
v. :
:
Darlene K. Windsor, :
: DECISION AND : JUDGMENT ENTRY Respondent. :
: RELEASED: 7/12/2017 ______________________________________________________________________ HARSHA, A.J.,
{¶1} This matter comes before the Court on Relator Lonny Bristow’s motion to proceed to file a mandamus petition pursuant to the vexatious litigator provision in R.C. 2323.52. We DENY the motion and DISMISS the petition.
{¶2} Bristow is a vexatious litigator under R.C. 2323.52. See Mayer v. Bristow, Crawford C.P. No. 98CV0082 (June 1, 1998). “Under R.C. 2323.52(F), a person subject to an R.C. 2323.52(D)(1) vexatious litigator order ‘who seeks to institute or continue any legal proceeding in a court of appeals or to make an application, other than an application for leave to proceed under division (F)(2) of this section, in any legal proceedings in a court of appeals shall file an application for leave to proceed in the court of appeals in which the legal proceedings would be instituted or are pending.’ ” State ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin Cty. Court of Appeals, 118 Ohio St.3d 368, 2008-Ohio- 2637, 889 N.E.2d 500, ¶19. Leave to proceed will not be granted unless the appellate court “is satisfied that the proceedings or application are not an abuse of process of the *2 Lawrence App. No. 17CA9 2 court and that there are reasonable grounds for the proceedings or application.” R.C. 2323.52(F)(2).
{¶3} Bristow seeks leave to file a mandamus petition to compel his aunt, Darlene K. Windsor, to pay him damages for an alleged slander and for a freeze on all of his aunt’s monies and property. Mandamus actions are governed by Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2731. A mandamus is a writ to enforce performance of a specific act by a public official or agency and will only be issued where there is a clear legal duty to act. See R.C. 2731.01 (defining mandamus). “Mandamus will not lie to enforce a private right against a private person.” State ex rel. Longacre v. Penton Publishing Co. 77 Ohio St.3d 266, 1997-Ohio-276, 673 N.E.2d 1297 (1997) quoting State ex rel. Russell v. Duncan , 64 Ohio St.3d 538, 597 N.E.2d 142 (1992).
{¶4} Bristow’s mandamus petition seeks to enforce a private right against a private person. Thus, we DENY Bristow’s motion for leave to file a mandamus petition because it is an abuse of process of the court and there are no reasonable grounds for proceeding and DISMISS the petition.
{¶5} MOTION DENIED. PETITION DISMISSED. COSTS TO RELATOR. IT IS SO ORDERED .
Abele, J. and McFarland, J.: Concur.
FOR THE COURT _____________________________ William H. Harsha Administrative Judge