Case Title: State ex rel. Brown v. Logan

Citation: 2014-Ohio-769

Docket Number: 2013-0859

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2014-03-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Brown v. Logan, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-769.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2014-OHIO-769 
THE STATE EX REL. BROWN, APPELLANT, v. LOGAN, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Brown v. Logan,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-769.] 
Portion of court of appeals’ judgment dismissing complaint for writ of mandamus 
and/or procedendo affirmed—Portion of court of appeals’ judgment 
revoking forma pauperis privileges reversed. 
(No. 2013-0859—Submitted October 22, 2013—Decided March 5, 2014.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County, No. 2012-T-0099. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Felix Brown Jr., brought an original action for a writ of 
mandamus and/or procedendo in the Eleventh District Court of Appeals seeking 
to compel Trumbull County Common Pleas Court Judge Andrew D. Logan to rule 
on a motion for leave to amend a prior motion for relief from judgment.  The 
court of appeals denied the petition as moot.  The court of appeals also sua sponte 
revoked Brown’s in forma pauperis privileges for filing a frivolous action. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the 
court of appeals in part and reverse it in part. 
Background 
{¶ 3} In September 1995, a Trumbull County jury convicted Brown of 
murder.  See State v. Brown, 11th Dist. Trumbull Nos. 95-T-5349 and 98-T-0061, 
2000 WL 522339 (Mar. 31, 2000).  The trial court sentenced Brown to serve a 
prison term of 18 years to life. 
{¶ 4} Sixteen years later, on August 25, 2011, Brown filed an omnibus 
motion in the trial court, citing Civ.R. 60(B)(4) and 60(B)(5) and Rule 47 of the 
Trumbull County Local Rules.  On September 20, 2011, Brown filed a Civ.R. 
15(A) motion for leave to amend his omnibus motion to add two additional claims 
for relief. 
{¶ 5} On the same day, September 20, 2011, the trial court denied the 
omnibus motion and ordered Brown to complete his original sentence.  The 
decision did not mention Brown’s motion for leave to amend. 
{¶ 6} Brown appealed to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals.  The 
court of appeals issued a judgment entry on June 8, 2012, in which it remanded 
the case to the trial court for a ruling on the September 20, 2011 motion for leave 
to amend.  State v. Brown, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2011-T-0101 (June 8, 2012).  
Unfortunately, the appellate court’s entry contained an error.  The court of appeals 
wrote, “[I]t is ordered that this case be remanded to the trial court for a period of 
twenty days from the date of this judgment entry so that it can rule upon 
appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.”  (Emphasis added.)  Id.  Brown 
had never entered a guilty plea, much less filed a motion to withdraw a guilty 
plea. 
{¶ 7} The court of appeals quickly realized its mistake.  On June 13, 
2012, the appellate court vacated the first entry and sua sponte substituted a 
second entry nunc pro tunc for the vacated judgment entry.  State v. Brown, 11th 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
Dist. Trumbull No. 2011-T-0101 (June 13, 2012).  The nunc pro tunc entry 
correctly remanded the case, again for a period of 20 days, for the trial court to 
rule on the motion for leave to amend. 
{¶ 8} Also on June 13, 2012, the trial court, apparently unaware of the 
nunc pro tunc entry, proceeded to enter judgment pursuant to the first remand 
order.  The trial court noted that the matter had been remanded for a ruling on 
Brown’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.  “However,” the trial court stated, 
“the Court ruled on that motion on September 19, 2011” when it denied the 
omnibus motion in its entirety.  Id.  Thus, the trial court evidently overlooked the 
fact that the omnibus motion did not include a motion to withdraw guilty plea. 
{¶ 9} Nevertheless, even though the original court of appeals’ judgment 
contained an error, the trial court correctly recognized that the motion was still 
pending, and proceeded to rule on it.  Specifically, the trial court’s June 13, 2012 
judgment entry denied the motion for leave, stating: 
 
The Court finds the motion to amend is a nullity and is therefore 
not well taken.  The Court had previously denied Brown’s motion 
to vacate on September 19, 2011.  Therefore, Brown’s motion to 
amend on September 20, 2011 is a legal nullity as the subject of 
amendment had been previously denied. 
 
State v. Brown, Trumbull C.P. No. 1995 CR 00127 (June 13, 2012). 
{¶ 10} Brown responded by filing two successive petitions for writs of 
mandamus and/or procedendo in the Eleventh District Court of Appeals to compel 
the trial court to rule on his motion for leave to amend.  He filed the first request 
under the case caption of his direct appeal, rather than as a separate original 
action.  For this reason, the court of appeals dismissed the first petition as 
procedurally defective.  State v. Brown, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2011-T-0101 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
(Sept. 12, 2012).  In the same judgment entry, the appellate court wrote that the 
request was moot because the trial court did rule on the motion for leave in its 
June 13, 2012 judgment entry. 
{¶ 11} Guided by the first dismissal, Brown refiled his petition for a writ 
of mandamus and/or procedendo as an original action.  The appellate court 
dismissed the second petition as moot.  State ex rel. Brown v. Logan, 11th Dist. 
Trumbull No. 2012-T-0099 (May 6, 2013).  In addition, the court of appeals 
revoked Brown’s in forma pauperis privileges due to Brown’s “repetitious and 
frivolous conduct.”  Id. at 3. 
{¶ 12} Brown timely appealed that judgment to this court. 
Analysis 
{¶ 13} For a writ of procedendo to issue, Brown must show a clear legal 
right to require the court to proceed, a clear legal duty on the part of the court to 
proceed, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  
State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier, 135 Ohio St.3d 436, 2013-Ohio-1762, 988 N.E.2d 
564, ¶ 7.  A writ of procedendo is proper when a court has refused to enter 
judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment.  State ex rel. 
Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna, 73 Ohio St.3d 180, 184, 652 N.E.2d 
742 (1995). 
{¶ 14} Brown argues that the appellate court erred when it held that the 
trial court had already ruled on his motion for leave to amend.  According to 
Brown, the first remand from the court of appeals conferred limited jurisdiction 
upon the trial court, that is, jurisdiction to rule only upon the nonexistent motion 
to withdraw guilty plea.  So when the trial court ruled on the motion to amend, it 
exceeded its limited mandate, and therefore, the June 13, 2012 trial court 
judgment entry was void. 
{¶ 15} According to Brown, the trial court did not regain jurisdiction to 
decide the motion for leave until the appellate court entered its nunc pro tunc 
January Term, 2014 
5 
 
entry on June 13, 2012, and since that time, the trial court has not issued a new 
decision on the motion.  Therefore, Brown contends, the motion for leave remains 
pending and the petition for writ of mandamus/procedendo is not moot. 
{¶ 16} Judge Logan, on the other hand, argues that Brown’s 
mandamus/procedendo action is barred by res judicata.  According to Judge 
Logan, Brown either raised or could have raised the same issue in his first 
mandamus/procedendo action, which the court of appeals dismissed on September 
12, 2012. 
{¶ 17} We hold that the first dismissal does not operate as res judicata.  
The appellate court’s judgment entry makes clear that it dismissed the first 
mandamus/procedendo action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 
 
Preliminarily, we note that Brown filed his petition under his 
existing direct appeal, 11th Dist. No. 2011-T-0101.  To invoke our 
jurisdiction to institute an original action, Brown must file his 
petition separate and apart from his existing appeal. 
 
Brown, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2011-T-0101 (Sept. 12, 2012), at 1.  A dismissal 
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction does not operate as res judicata when the 
complaint is refiled.  Billiter v. Banks, 135 Ohio St.3d 426, 2013-Ohio-1719, 988 
N.E.2d 556, ¶ 11.  Once the appellate court declared that it lacked subject-matter 
jurisdiction to entertain the mandamus/procedendo complaint, any discussion of 
the merits was dicta.  Wallace v. Dept. of Commerce, 96 Ohio St.3d 266, 2002-
Ohio-4210, 773 N.E.2d 1018, ¶ 17, fn. 4.  The portions of the appellate court 
decision declaring that the trial court had issued a valid ruling on Brown’s motion 
and that Brown’s petition was therefore moot were dicta and thus cannot 
constitute res judicata. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 18} But although Judge Logan cannot prevail on res judicata grounds, 
he is entitled to judgment on the merits.  The evidence in the record demonstrates 
that both the appellate court’s nunc pro tunc order and the trial court’s decision to 
reject the motion for leave were issued on June 13, 2012.  The clerk of court’s 
date stamp on Judge Logan’s judgment entry does not indicate the time of day at 
which the entry was filed, so it is impossible to determine which entry was 
journalized first.  It is at least possible that the appellate court’s nunc pro tunc 
entry was journalized first, which means the trial court did in fact have 
jurisdiction to decide the motion, even if it was unaware of the nunc pro tunc 
entry at the time. 
{¶ 19} Brown has the burden of proof to show that he is entitled to 
extraordinary relief.  Brown has not eliminated the possibility that the trial court 
had jurisdiction at the time Judge Logan ruled, which means he cannot prevail. 
{¶ 20} Brown argues that even if the trial court did have jurisdiction to 
issue its June 13, 2012 order, it was not free to make the ruling that it did 
regarding the timeliness of his motion to amend.  He argues that the court of 
appeals necessarily decided that his motion for leave to amend was filed before 
the trial court ruled on the omnibus motion, because otherwise there would have 
been no reason to remand the case in the first place.  Brown then reasons that this 
determination became the law of the case, and the trial court was not free to reach 
a different conclusion.  This argument construes the appellate court order too 
broadly.  The purpose of the remand was to determine whether the motion for 
leave had merit, which would include determining whether it had been timely 
filed or was moot.  Nothing in the language of the remand order indicates that the 
appellate court intended to preempt the trial court by deciding this issue.  And 
even if Brown is correct that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for 
leave as moot, because his omnibus motion was still pending when he filed his 
motion for leave to amend, he would not be entitled to an extraordinary writ.  If 
January Term, 2014 
7 
 
the trial court wrongly denied his motion as moot, Brown’s remedy would lie in a 
direct appeal of the entry denying his motion for leave. 
{¶ 21} Moreover, the writ was properly denied because Brown’s own 
logic is ultimately self-defeating.  Both the original (erroneous) June 2012 remand 
order and the nunc pro tunc order provided for a limited remand lasting 20 days 
only.  So if Brown were correct that the trial court’s June 13, 2012 entry was void 
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, it would necessarily follow that the trial 
court was also without subject-matter jurisdiction to decide the motion when 
Brown filed his mandamus/procedendo action in December 2012 because 
jurisdiction had returned to the court of appeals when the 20 days elapsed.  And if 
the trial court had no jurisdiction to rule on the motion, then it necessarily follows 
that the trial court had no clear legal duty to rule on the motion, and Brown has no 
clear legal right to a writ. 
{¶ 22} We therefore affirm the dismissal of Brown’s petition. 
{¶ 23} The remaining issue for decision is whether the court of appeals 
abused its discretion by revoking Brown’s in forma pauperis status.  “In forma 
pauperis” means that a party is indigent and may file an action or appeal without 
payment of costs.  See, e.g., R.C. 2969.25(C); Loc.App.R. 3(B)(1) of the Eleventh 
District Court of Appeals.  Brown erroneously equates the revocation of his in 
forma pauperis status with a declaration that he is a vexatious litigator.  The two 
sanctions are not the same.  Brown has not been subjected to any of the 
restrictions provided in R.C. 2323.52(D)(1), such as being required to obtain 
leave of court before filing a complaint. 
{¶ 24} Courts have inherent authority to revoke a litigant’s in forma 
pauperis status prospectively.  In re Guess, 75 Ohio St.3d 1515, 665 N.E.2d 684 
(1996).  Generally, a litigant’s improper conduct must reach a high threshold 
before a court will take such severe action.  For example, in In re McDonald, 489 
U.S. 180, 183, 109 S.Ct. 993, 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989), the United States Supreme 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
Court revoked a petitioner’s in forma pauperis privileges after the petitioner made 
73 meritless filings.  And in In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, 111 S.Ct. 596, 112 
L.Ed.2d 599 (1991), the court revoked the privileges after the petitioner filed 43 
petitions and motions in the Supreme Court and pursued litigation in five separate 
state and federal courts on 27 occasions, all in relation to a speeding ticket. 
{¶ 25} Ohio courts have taken such action only upon a similar showing of 
abuse.  The Ohio Court of Claims revoked Maharathah Karmasu’s in forma 
pauperis privileges because he had filed 37 frivolous, repetitive suits.  Karmasu v. 
S. Ohio Corr. Facility, 63 Ohio Misc.2d 377, 378, 629 N.E.2d 1132 (Ct. of 
Claims.1993).  Also in 1993, Karmasu filed the same complaint in a different 
venue, which led to a revocation of his privileges in that court as well.  Karmasu 
v. Wilkinson, 115 Ohio App.3d 737, 686 N.E.2d 309 (12th Dist.1996); see also 
State ex rel. Nash v. Cleveland Police Dept., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84501, 
2004-Ohio-4351, ¶ 5 (in forma pauperis status revoked after Nash filed “more 
than twenty” original actions and appeals that had no merit); State ex rel. Richard 
v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 100 Ohio App.3d 592, 600, 654 N.E.2d 443 
(8th Dist.1995) (in forma pauperis status revoked after petitioner filed 63 
meritless original actions for extraordinary relief). 
{¶ 26} In this case, by contrast, the court of appeals took action in 
response to one filing.  Brown, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2012-T-0099, at 3-4 
(“this court deemed Brown’s original action, filed July 27, 2012, moot, and then, 
just five months later, Brown filed a subsequent original action seeking the same 
remedy.  Based on Brown’s filing, this court hereby revokes his in forma pauperis 
privilege”).  As discussed above, Brown filed his first request for extraordinary 
relief under the case caption of his criminal appeal, rather than as a separate 
action, so the appellate court dismissed the petition for lack of subject-matter 
jurisdiction.  Thus, any discussion of mootness in that first dismissal entry was 
January Term, 2014 
9 
 
dicta, and there was nothing improper in Brown’s filing an original action in 
proper form to secure a ruling on the merits. 
{¶ 27} Revocation of one’s in forma pauperis privileges is reserved for the 
most serious cases of abuse of the privileges.  Although Brown’s complaint 
proved meritless and even close to frivolous, it does not warrant this severe 
action.  We therefore find that the court of appeals abused its discretion, and we 
reverse its judgment as to the revocation of in forma pauperis privileges. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 28} We affirm the portion of the court of appeals’ judgment dismissing 
the petition for writ of mandamus and/or procedendo and reverse the portion 
revoking Brown’s in forma pauperis privileges. 
Judgment affirmed in part 
and reversed in part. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
Felix Brown Jr., pro se. 
Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecuting Attorney, and LuWayne 
Annos, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
________________________