Case Title: State ex rel. Forsyth v. Brigner

Citation: 1999-Ohio-191

Docket Number: 19990599

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-09-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Forsyth v. Brigner, 86 Ohio St.3d 585, 1999-Ohio-191.] 
 
 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. FORSYTH, APPELLANT, v. BRIGNER, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Forsyth v. Brigner (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 585.] 
Mandamus sought to compel domestic relations division judge to rescind order 
preventing relator from filing pleadings with the clerk of the trial court 
without the judge’s prior approval — Dismissal of complaint affirmed. 
(No. 99-599 — Submitted July 28, 1999 — Decided September 22, 1999.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 17591. 
 
In December 1998, appellant, M. Wayne Forsyth, filed a complaint in the 
Court of Appeals for Montgomery County for a writ of mandamus to compel 
appellee, Domestic Relations Division Judge V. Michael Brigner, to rescind his 
October 25, 1993 order preventing Forsyth from filing pleadings with the clerk of 
the trial court without Judge Brigner’s prior approval, and to compel an evidentiary 
hearing on Forsyth’s 1998 motion to vacate an alleged void judgment in Forsyth’s 
divorce case.  After Judge Brigner filed a motion to dismiss, the court of appeals 
granted the motion and dismissed the case.  Given Forsyth’s numerous mandamus 
actions to attack the trial court’s judgment of divorce, the court of appeals denied 
in forma pauperis status for Forsyth for all future original actions filed in that court 
relating to his divorce case. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
M. Wayne Forsyth, pro se. 
 
Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and John 
F. Krumholtz, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals based on our 
decision in Forsyth’s appeal in a recent mandamus case in which he raised the 
 
2 
same claims.  State ex rel. Forsyth v. Brigner (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 71, 711 N.E.2d 
684. 
 
We also agree that by filing numerous original actions to challenge the same 
rulings by Judge Brigner, Forsyth has abused his in forma pauperis status.  As the 
United States Supreme Court observed in In re Sindram (1991), 498 U.S. 177, 179-
180, 111 S.Ct. 596, 597-598, 112 L.Ed.2d 599, 604-605: 
 
“[T]he Court waives filing fees and costs for indigent individuals in order to 
promote the interests of justice.  The goal of fairly dispensing justice, however, is 
compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to the 
processing of repetitious and frivolous requests.  Pro se petitioners have a greater 
capacity than most to disrupt the fair allocation of judicial resources because they 
are not subject to the financial considerations — filing fees and attorney’s fees — 
that deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions.  * * * The risks of abuse 
are particularly acute with respect to applications for extraordinary relief, since 
such petitions are not subject to any time limitations and, theoretically, could be 
filed at any time without limitation.  In order to prevent frivolous petitions for 
extraordinary relief from unsettling the fair administration of justice, the Court has 
a duty to deny in forma pauperis status to those individuals who have abused the 
system.  Under the circumstances of this case, we find it appropriate to deny in 
forma pauperis status to petitioner in this and all future petitions for extraordinary 
relief.”  (Citation omitted.)  See, also, State ex rel. Richard v. Cuyahoga Cty. 
Commrs. (1995), 100 Ohio App.3d 592, 654 N.E.2d 443; Karmasu v. Wilkinson 
(1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 737, 686 N.E.2d 309. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.  We 
also order that the Clerk of this court not accept for filing any additional appeals or 
original actions from Forsyth unless accompanied by the docket fee and security 
deposit required by S.Ct.Prac.R. XV.  See Smith v. Serva-Portion, Inc. (1997), 78 
 
3 
Ohio St.3d 1504, 679 N.E.2d 5; In re Guess (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 1515, 665 
N.E.2d 684; S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(5).1 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
FOOTNOTE: 
1. 
We deny Forsyth’s request for oral argument.  He has not established any of 
the factors that might warrant oral argument.  State ex rel. Lee v. Trumbull Cty. 
Probate Court (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 369, 371, 700 N.E.2d 4, 7.