Title: State ex rel. Lisboa v. Fuerst

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Lisboa v. Fuerst, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3913.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-3913 
THE STATE EX REL. LISBOA, APPELLANT, v. FUERST, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Lisboa v. Fuerst,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3913.] 
Vexatious litigators—Local rule of Eighth District Court of Appeals upheld—
Determination of status as vexatious litigator upheld. 
(No. 2012-0388—Submitted August 22, 2012—Decided September 4, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County,  
No. 97856, 2012-Ohio-370. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals declaring appellant, 
Jose Lisboa Jr., to be a vexatious litigator under Loc.App.R. 23(B) of the Eighth 
District Court of Appeals.  Lisboa’s claims that the local appellate rule is 
unconstitutional or otherwise illegal lack merit.  See Mayer v. Bristow, 91 Ohio 
St.3d 3, 740 N.E.2d 656 (2000), paragraph one of the syllabus (upholding the 
constitutionality of the comparable vexatious-litigator statute, R.C. 2323.52, by 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
rejecting claims that the statute violated constitutional rights to due process and 
access to courts); Grundstein v. Ohio, N.D. Ohio No. 1:06 CV 2381, 2006 WL 
3499990 (Dec. 5, 2006) (R.C. 2323.52 is not unconstitutionally vague and does 
not violate constitutional rights of due process or equal protection); Thrower v. 
Montgomery, N.D. Ohio No. 5:03CV775, 2006 WL 3692925 (Dec. 13, 2006) 
(upholding constitutionality of R.C. 2323.52); see also S.Ct.Prac.R. 14.5(B), 
which contains similar language to Loc.App.R. 23(B). 
{¶ 2} Moreover, the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion by 
determining that Lisboa’s claims for extraordinary relief in prohibition and 
mandamus were frivolous and that his filing of numerous meritless actions 
warranted its declaration that he is a vexatious litigator.  2012-Ohio-370, ¶ 3 (“It 
must also be noted that Lisboa has continually taxed the limited resources of this 
court through the filing of over 22 appeals and 7 original actions over the past 7 
years”).  See State ex rel. Bandarapalli v. Gallagher, 128 Ohio St.3d 314, 2011-
Ohio-230, 943 N.E.2d 1020, ¶ 1 (defective-indictment claim should be raised only 
by direct challenge in the ordinary course of law rather than in a collateral attack 
by extraordinary writ); State ex rel. Barr v. Pittman, 127 Ohio St.3d 32, 2010-
Ohio-4989, 936 N.E.2d 43, ¶ 1 (speedy-trial claim is not cognizable in an 
extraordinary-writ action). 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jose C. Lisboa Jr., pro se. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. 
Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________