Case Title: Baumgartner v. Duffey

Citation: 2009-Ohio-1218

Docket Number: 20082057

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-03-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Baumgartner v. Duffey, 121 Ohio St.3d 356, 2009-Ohio-1218.] 
 
 
BAUMGARTNER, APPELLANT, v. DUFFEY, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Baumgartner v. Duffey, 121 Ohio St.3d 356, 2009-Ohio-1218.] 
Vexatious litigators — R.C. 2323.52 — Failure to obtain leave of court before 
filing petition for writ of habeas corpus — Denial of writ affirmed. 
(No. 2008-2057 — Submitted March 11, 2009 — Decided March 24, 2009.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Union County, No. 14-08-32. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 
petition for a writ of habeas corpus of appellant, Elsebeth Baumgartner, 
challenging the revocation of her bail pending appeal.  Baumgartner’s bail was 
revoked when she violated a condition by filing a lawsuit in a federal district court 
without the express written permission of the common pleas court judge. 
{¶ 2} Baumgartner claims that the court of appeals erred in dismissing 
her petition because habeas corpus is the proper vehicle to challenge excessive 
bail after a judgment of conviction and because one of the conditions of bail ─ 
that she file no lawsuit in any court against any public official without the express 
written permission of the common pleas court judge ─ was excessive.  See, e.g., 
State ex rel. Pirman v. Money (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 591, 594, 635 N.E.2d 26; 
Mayer v. Bristow (2000), 91 Ohio St.3d 3, 19-20, 740 N.E.2d 656 (no authority 
“purports to authorize a single state common pleas court to control the processes 
of every state and federal court throughout the United States”); Ex Parte Hull 
(1941), 312 U.S. 546, 549, 61 S.Ct. 640, 85 L.Ed. 1034 (“the state and its officers 
may not abridge or impair petitioner’s right to apply to a federal court”). 
{¶ 3} Even if her claim had merit, dismissal was still warranted. 
Baumgartner 
was 
declared 
a 
vexatious 
litigator 
in 
2004. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov./Clerk//vexatious.  Thus, she could not 
“institute legal proceedings in a court of appeals * * * without first obtaining 
leave of the court of appeals to proceed” in accordance with the vexatious-
litigator statute.  R.C. 2323.52(D)(3).  She did not obtain leave of the court of 
appeals to proceed before she filed her habeas corpus petition.  Once Baumgartner 
apprised the court of appeals of her status as a vexatious litigator, the court should 
have dismissed the cause without addressing the merits of her habeas corpus 
claim.  See R.C. 2323.52(I); State ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin Cty. Court of Appeals, 
118 Ohio St.3d 368, 2008-Ohio-2637, 889 N.E.2d 500. 
{¶ 4} Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.  
Although the court of appeals did not rely on this rationale to dismiss the petition, 
we will not reverse a correct judgment even if some or all of the lower court’s 
rationale was erroneous.  Goudlock v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 398, 2008-Ohio-
4787, 894 N.E.2d 692, ¶ 12.1 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
LANZINGER, J., not participating. 
___________________ 
 
Sandra J. Finucane, for appellant. 
 
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Jerri L. Fosnaught, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
______________________ 
                                                 
1.  We deny appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal as moot.