Case Title: In re Disqualification of Rosebrook

Citation: 2020-Ohio-5360

Docket Number: 20-AP-092

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2020-11-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Rosebrook, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2020-Ohio-5360.] 
 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF ROSEBROOK. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. PELMEAR. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Rosebrook, ___ Ohio St.3d ___,  
2020-Ohio-5360.] 
Judges—Affidavits of disqualification—R.C. 2701.03 and 2701.031—Affiant failed 
to demonstrate bias or prejudice—Disqualification denied. 
(No. 20-AP-092—Decided November 10, 2020.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Napoleon Municipal Court Case No. 
CRB2000482. 
____________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Defendant Douglas-Alan: Pelmear has filed an affidavit pursuant to 
R.C. 2701.03 and 2701.031 seeking to disqualify Judge Amy C. Rosebrook from 
the above-referenced case. 
{¶ 2} Mr. Pelmear avers that for various reasons, Judge Rosebrook is biased 
against him and has a conflict of interest.  Judge Rosebrook filed a response to the 
affidavit, in which she denied any bias against Mr. Pelmear and affirmed that she 
will impartially preside over the underlying case. 
{¶ 3} In disqualification requests, “[t]he term ‘bias or prejudice’ ‘implies a 
hostile feeling or spirit of ill-will or undue friendship or favoritism toward one of 
the litigants or his attorney, with the formation of a fixed anticipatory judgment on 
the part of the judge, as contradistinguished from an open state of mind which will 
be governed by the law and the facts.’ ”  In re Disqualification of O’Neill, 100 Ohio 
St.3d 1232, 2002-Ohio-7479, 798 N.E.2d 17, ¶ 14, quoting State ex rel. Pratt v. 
Weygandt, 164 Ohio St. 463, 469, 132 N.E.2d 191 (1956).  “The proper test for 
determining whether a judge’s participation in a case presents an appearance of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
impropriety is * * * an objective one.  A judge should step aside or be removed if 
a reasonable and objective observer would harbor serious doubts about the judge’s 
impartiality.”  In re Disqualification of Lewis, 117 Ohio St.3d 1227, 2004-Ohio-
7359, 884 N.E.2d 1082, ¶ 8.  Mr. Pelmear has not established that Judge Rosebrook 
has hostile feelings toward him or has formed a fixed anticipatory judgment on any 
issue in the underlying case.  Nor has Mr. Pelmear set forth a compelling argument 
for disqualifying Judge Rosebrook to avoid an appearance of partiality. 
{¶ 4} Mr. Pelmear first asserts that the judge has a conflict of interest 
because she formerly served as his attorney.  Judge Rosebrook acknowledges that 
in 2002, while she was in private practice, she represented Mr. Pelmear in a civil 
dispute with a bank.  The judge further states, however, that Mr. Pelmear has failed 
to explain how the civil matter is related to the pending disorderly-conduct charge 
against him.  “A judge’s prior representation of a party in matters wholly unrelated 
to a matter pending before the judge does not compel the judge’s disqualification, 
unless there is a specific showing of actual bias on the part of the judge.”  In re 
Disqualification of Serrott, 134 Ohio St.3d 1245, 2012-Ohio-6340, 984 N.E.2d 14, 
¶ 6.  Here, Mr. Pelmear has made no attempt to show that Judge Rosebrook harbors 
bias against him based on the prior representation, and nothing in the record 
suggests that the judge’s representation of Mr. Pelmear 18 years ago would cause 
an objective observer to question her ability to remain impartial. 
{¶ 5} Second, Mr. Pelmear alleges that Judge Rosebrook has a conflict of 
interest because he previously filed a lawsuit against county and state officials.  But 
Mr. Pelmear has again failed to explain how that separate matter is related to the 
underlying criminal charge against him or why Judge Rosebrook would harbor bias 
against him because of that lawsuit.  “[V]ague, unsubstantiated allegations of the 
affidavit are insufficient on their face for a finding of bias or prejudice.”  In re 
Disqualification of Walker, 36 Ohio St.3d 606, 522 N.E.2d 460 (1988). 
January Term, 2020 
 
3
{¶ 6} Third, Mr. Pelmear alleges that Judge Rosebrook demonstrated bias 
against him and violated his constitutional rights by rejecting his jurisdictional and 
venue arguments and prohibiting him from having his nation’s flag in her 
courtroom.  Judge Rosebrook acknowledges that her bailiff prevented Mr. Pelmear 
from attempting to hang a flag in her courtroom and that she later issued an order 
prohibiting any flag other than the United States flag from being displayed in her 
courtroom.  It is well settled that “affidavits of disqualification cannot be used to 
remove a judge from a case simply because a party is particularly unhappy about a 
court ruling or a series of rulings.”  In re Disqualification of D’Apolito, 139 Ohio 
St.3d 1230, 2014-Ohio-2153, 11 N.E.3d 279, ¶ 5.  Mr. Pelmear may have other 
remedies for his constitutional arguments, but he has failed to establish that any of 
the judge’s rulings were a product of bias against him.  Nor has he established that 
the judge’s decision prohibiting him from hanging a flag in her courtroom means 
that she cannot be impartial. 
{¶ 7} Finally, Mr. Pelmear avers that based on the language in a court-bond 
form, Judge Rosebrook has already determined his guilt.  Judge Rosebrook states 
that the form language is taken from the Ohio Revised Code and that, regardless, 
she has not found him guilty of the disorderly-conduct charge.  Judge Rosebrook is 
correct—neither the form’s language nor anything else in the record establish that 
she has predetermined Mr. Pelmear’s guilt. 
{¶ 8} The affidavit of disqualification is denied.  The case may proceed 
before Judge Rosebrook. 
________________________