Title: In re Disqualification of Stucki

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Stucki, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2019-Ohio-1624.] 
 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF STUCKI. 
O’MALLEY v. O’MALLEY. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Stucki, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2019-Ohio-1624.] 
Judges—Affidavits of disqualification—R.C. 2701.03—Document attached to 
affidavit but not sworn to before an authorized officer may not be 
considered in deciding disqualification request—Remaining vague 
allegations of affiant insufficient to require removal of trial-court judge—
Disqualification denied. 
(No. 19-AP-001—Decided January 30, 2019.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County Court of Common 
Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. DR-04-229141. 
____________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Defendant, Patrick Joseph O’Malley, has filed an affidavit with the 
clerk of this court pursuant to R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge David 
Stucki, a retired judge sitting by assignment, from presiding over any further 
proceedings in the above-referenced case. 
{¶ 2} Mr. O’Malley alleges that Judge Stucki engaged in improper ex parte 
discussions, violated the court’s time guidelines for child-custody cases, failed to 
hold hearings on pending motions, and has been more focused on collecting money 
owed to the guardian ad litem rather than locating the parties’ children, who 
evidently disappeared from a Nebraska children’s facility. 
{¶ 3} Judge Stucki has responded in writing to the affidavit and denies any 
bias against Mr. O’Malley.  The judge also denies engaging in any ex parte 
communications and explains his relationships with the guardian ad litem and the 
facility in which he placed the parties’ children. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 4} For the reasons explained below, no basis has been established to 
order the disqualification of Judge Stucki. 
{¶ 5} First, many of Mr. O’Malley’s allegations cannot be considered.  With 
his sworn affidavit, Mr. O’Malley submitted an unsworn document entitled 
“Request For Disqualification.”  The unsworn document included many factual 
allegations that went beyond those in his affidavit.  R.C. 2701.03(B)(1) and (2), 
however, authorize a party to file an affidavit of disqualification, which must 
include “specific allegations” of bias sworn to before a “jurat of a notary public or 
another person authorized to administer oaths or affirmations.”  Under Ohio law, 
an affidavit “ ‘is a written declaration under oath.’ ”  In re Disqualification of 
Donnelly, 134 Ohio St.3d 1221, 2011-Ohio-7080, 982 N.E.2d 713, ¶ 2, quoting 
R.C. 2319.02.  In deciding a disqualification request, the chief justice cannot 
consider unsworn allegations by a litigant.  See In re Disqualification of Fuerst, 
134 Ohio St.3d 1267, 2012-Ohio-6344, 984 N.E.2d 1079, ¶ 19, quoting In re 
Disqualification of Pokorny, 74 Ohio St.3d 1238, 657 N.E.2d 1345 (1992) 
(explaining that a party’s failure to confirm allegations “ ‘by oath or affirmation’ ” 
violated R.C. 2701.03, leading to an unsworn letter having “ ‘no effect on the 
proceedings’ ”).  Accordingly, Mr. O’Malley’s unsworn allegations in his 
memorandum cannot be considered in deciding his disqualification request. 
{¶ 6} Second, the vague allegations in Mr. O’Malley’s affidavit are 
insufficient to require Judge Stucki’s removal.  For example, Mr. O’Malley states 
that he is “aware of many ex-parte discussions which had involved [J]udge David 
Stucki with others.”  It is well established, however, that “[a]n alleged ex parte 
communication constitutes grounds for disqualification when there is ‘proof that 
the communication * * * addressed substantive matters in the pending case.’ ”  
(Ellipsis sic.)  In re Disqualification of Forsthoefel, 135 Ohio St.3d 1316, 2013-
Ohio-2292, 989 N.E.2d 62, ¶ 7, quoting In re Disqualification of Calabrese, 100 
Ohio St.3d 1224, 2002-Ohio-7475, 798 N.E.2d 10, ¶ 2.  “The allegations must be 
January Term, 2019 
 
3
substantiated and consist of something more than hearsay or speculation.”  Id.  
Here, Mr. O’Malley has not alleged—let alone established—that Judge Stucki 
engaged in ex parte communications about substantive matters in the case.  “This 
and the other vague, 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). 
{¶ 7} Similarly, “[a]n affidavit of disqualification * * * is not a vehicle to 
contest matters of substantive or procedural law.”  In re Disqualification of 
Solovan, 100 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2003-Ohio-5484, 798 N.E.2d 3, ¶ 4.  Mr. O’Malley 
may have other remedies if he believes that Judge Stucki has failed to hold required 
hearings or if the guardian ad litem charged excessive fees.  Those issues, however, 
cannot be litigated in a disqualification matter.  And Mr. O’Malley’s mere 
disagreement with the judge’s legal decisions does not prove bias or prejudice.  Id. 
{¶ 8} The affidavit of disqualification is denied.  The case may proceed 
before Judge Stucki. 
________________________