Case Title: Tatman v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Elections

Citation: 2004-Ohio-3701

Docket Number: 20040650

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-07-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Tatman v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Elections, 102 Ohio St.3d 425, 2004-Ohio-3701.] 
 
 
TATMAN v. FAIRFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS. 
[Cite as Tatman v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Elections, 102 Ohio St.3d 425, 2004-
Ohio-3701.] 
Elections — Writ of prohibition — Action for prohibitory injunction in common 
pleas court is an adequate remedy at law, when. 
(No. 2004-0650 — Submitted June 8, 2004 — Decided July 28, 2004.) 
IN PROHIBITION. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Dennis S. Carley was employed as a peace officer with the 
Fairfield County, Ohio Sheriff’s Office during certain periods until April 6, 2000.  
From 1989 to 1992, Carley was also employed as a peace officer with the Perry 
County, Ohio Sheriff’s Office.  Since April 6, 2000, Carley has not been 
employed as a peace officer.  According to Carley, he has over nine years of 
supervisory experience as a peace officer at the rank of corporal or above through 
April 6, 2000.  From March 1, 1999, through March 1, 2004, however, Carley has 
only approximately 13 months of supervisory experience as a peace officer at the 
rank of corporal or above. 
{¶2} 
On October 29, 2003, Carley applied to become an independent 
candidate for the office of Sheriff of Fairfield County, Ohio in 2004.  Respondent, 
Fairfield County Board of Elections, received Carley’s application in November 
2003. 
{¶3} 
On March 16, 2004, relator, Carl E. Tatman, a resident and 
registered voter of Fairfield County, protested Carley’s candidacy with the board 
of elections.  Tatman claimed that Carley lacked the requisite supervisory 
experience to be an eligible candidate for sheriff. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶4} 
On April 6, 2004, the board held a hearing on Tatman’s protest.  At 
the conclusion of the hearing, the board voted two-to-one to deny Tatman’s 
protest and certify Carley’s name to the November 2004 election ballot “pending 
approval and certification of his Candidate Petition.” 
{¶5} 
On April 21, 2004, Tatman filed a complaint for a writ of 
prohibition to prevent the board from certifying Carley’s candidacy.  On May 7, 
2004, before the board had filed a response, Tatman filed an amended complaint 
in prohibition and a motion for leave to amend his original complaint because of 
missing pages.  On May 11, 2004, Carley moved to intervene as a respondent and 
attached a brief in opposition to Tatman’s action.  Carley did not attach any 
pleading to his motion.  The board’s response to the amended complaint was due 
May 21, 2004, but no response was timely filed.  Civ.R. 15(A). 
{¶6} 
This cause is now before the court for our determination under 
S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5) and on Tatman’s motion to amend his complaint and Carley’s 
motion to intervene. 
Motion to Amend 
{¶7} 
Tatman moves for leave to amend his original complaint.  Under 
S.Ct.Prac.R. X(2), original actions other than habeas corpus filed in the court 
“shall proceed under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, unless clearly 
inapplicable.”  Civ.R. 15(A) is not “clearly inapplicable” to election cases filed 
here.  State ex rel. Hackworth v. Hughes, 97 Ohio St.3d 110, 2002-Ohio-5334, 
776 N.E.2d 1050, ¶ 26. 
{¶8} 
Civ.R. 15(A) permits a party to amend its pleading “once as a 
matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.”  Under 
S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5), an answer, a motion to dismiss, or a motion for judgment on 
the pleadings constitutes a “responsive pleading.”  State ex rel. Grendell v. 
Davidson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 629, 631, 716 N.E.2d 704.  Because Tatman 
amended his complaint before the board filed a responsive pleading, his 
January Term, 2004 
3 
amendment was “as a matter of course” and no motion was necessary.  Campaign 
to Elect Larry Carver Sheriff v. Campaign to Elect Anthony Stankiewicz Sheriff, 
101 Ohio St.3d 256, 2004-Ohio-812, 804 N.E.2d 419, ¶ 7-8. 
{¶9} 
Therefore, Tatman’s complaint was amended as of right under 
Civ.R. 15(A), and we need not rule on his motion.  Id. at ¶ 8. 
Motion to Intervene 
{¶10} Carley moves to intervene as a respondent.  He claims entitlement 
to intervene as of right under Civ.R. 24(A). 
{¶11} We deny Carley’s motion to intervene.  Civ.R. 24(C) requires that 
any such motion be accompanied by a pleading “setting forth the claim or defense 
for which intervention is sought.”  Carley did not file any pleading with his 
motion to intervene.  See State ex rel. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Milligan, 
100 Ohio St.3d 366, 2003-Ohio-6608, 800 N.E.2d 361, ¶ 13; see, also, State ex 
rel. Wilkinson v. Reed, 99 Ohio St.3d 106, 2003-Ohio-2506, 789 N.E.2d 203, fn. 
1, and cases cited therein. 
{¶12} But because Carley was entitled to file an amicus curiae brief 
without leave of court, we will consider his brief, which is attached to his motion.  
See State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections (1995), 72 Ohio 
St.3d 69, 70, 647 N.E.2d 769 (court considers amicus curiae brief of a candidate 
whose motion to intervene in prohibition and mandamus election action was 
denied because of his failure to comply with Civ.R. 24[C]). 
S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5) Determination 
{¶13} Dismissal of this prohibition action under S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5) is 
required if it appears beyond doubt, after presuming the truth of all material 
factual allegations of the amended complaint and making all reasonable 
inferences in Tatman’s favor, that Tatman is not entitled to the requested 
extraordinary relief in prohibition.  See State ex rel. Satow v. Gausse-Milliken, 98 
Ohio St.3d 479, 2003-Ohio-2074, 786 N.E.2d 1289, ¶ 11.  If, however, after 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
construing the material factual allegations, it appears that Tatman’s prohibition 
claim may have merit, an alternative writ should be granted and a schedule for 
evidence and briefs should be issued.  State ex rel. C.V. Perry & Co. v.  Licking 
Cty. Bd. of Elections (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 442, 444, 764 N.E.2d 411. 
{¶14} Tatman requests a writ of prohibition to prevent Carley’s 
candidacy for Fairfield County Sheriff at the November 2004 general election.  
To be entitled to the requested writ, Tatman must establish that (1) the board is 
about to exercise quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power is 
unauthorized by law, and (3) denying the writ will result in injury for which no 
other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law.  Campaign to Elect 
Larry Carver Sheriff, 101 Ohio St.3d 256, 2004-Ohio-812, 804 N.E.2d 419, ¶ 9.  
Moreover, even if the board already exercised its quasi-judicial power by denying 
Tatman’s protest, relief in prohibition is still available to prevent the placement of 
names or issues on a ballot, as long as the election has not yet been held.  State ex 
rel. Baldzicki v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 238, 241, 
736 N.E.2d 893. 
{¶15} With these standards in mind, we now consider Tatman’s 
prohibition claim. 
Prohibition: Adequate Remedy 
{¶16} In order to be entitled to the writ, Tatman must establish the lack of 
an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  Campaign to Elect Larry 
Carver Sheriff, 101 Ohio St.3d 256, 2004-Ohio-812, 804 N.E.2d 419, ¶ 9.  
Tatman claims that based on State ex rel. Thurn v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections 
(1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 289, 649 N.E.2d 1205, he lacks an adequate legal remedy. 
{¶17} Tatman’s claim lacks merit.  In Thurn, we emphasized that 
“[c]oncerning the third prerequisite for a writ of prohibition, given the proximity 
of the election, an injunction would arguably not constitute an adequate remedy 
because any ‘appellate process would last well past the election.’ ”  Id. at 291-
January Term, 2004 
5 
292, 649 N.E.2d 1205, quoting State ex rel. Smart v. McKinley (1980), 64 Ohio 
St.2d 5, 6, 18 O.O.3d 128, 412 N.E.2d 393.  In Thurn, the election case was an 
expedited election matter filed on March 28, 1995, and involved the May 2, 1995 
ballot.  Similarly, in Smart, the original action was filed less than a month before 
the applicable election. 
{¶18} Here, however, the election was not imminent when the board 
denied Tatman’s protest.  It was almost seven months away.  The election was still 
over six months away when Tatman filed the action.  This is also not an expedited 
election case under S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9).  Therefore, the cases cited by Tatman are 
inapposite.  An action for a prohibitory injunction in common pleas court 
provides an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  Cf. State ex rel. 
Barton v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Elections (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 291, 292, 530 N.E.2d 
871 (“Prohibition does not lie to correct an allegedly erroneous exercise of 
properly assumed quasi-judicial authority by a board of elections in approving 
referendum petitions for the ballot; injunction is the proper remedy in such a 
case”). 
{¶19} Based on the foregoing, Tatman has or had an adequate remedy in 
the ordinary course of law by filing an action for a prohibitory injunction. 
Conclusion 
{¶20} We treat Tatman’s complaint as amended as a matter of course, 
deny Carley’s motion to intervene, treat Carley’s brief as an amicus curiae brief, 
and dismiss the cause because Tatman has or had an adequate legal remedy by an 
action for an injunction. 
Cause dismissed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Downes, Hurst & Fishel, Jonathan J. Downes and David A. Riepenhoff, 
for relator. 
 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., and Kevin R. Conners, urging 
dismissal for amicus curiae Dennis Carley. 
____________________