Title: In re Disqualification of Corrigan

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Corrigan, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-179.] 
 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF CORRIGAN. 
ANDERSON v. CUYAHOGA METROPOLITAN HOUSING AUTHORITY. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Corrigan, ___ Ohio St.3d ___,  
2016-Ohio-179.] 
Judges—Affidavits of disqualification—R.C. 2701.03—Affidavit contradicted by 
docket and fails to demonstrate bias or prejudice—Disqualification denied. 
(No. 15-AP-059—Decided July 22, 2015.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County Court of Common 
Pleas Case No. CV-14-820828. 
____________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Plaintiff, Wilfred Anderson, has filed an affidavit with the clerk of 
this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Peter J. Corrigan from 
presiding over a pending criminal contempt hearing in the above-captioned case. 
{¶ 2} Anderson claims that Judge Corrigan is biased against him for the 
following reasons:  (1) Judge Corrigan is the “complainant” who charged him with 
criminal contempt and therefore a conflict of interest exists if the judge also 
presides over the contempt hearing, (2) the contempt charges against Anderson—
for allegedly disobeying Judge Corrigan’s order declaring him a vexatious litigator 
and requiring him to obtain leave of court before instituting or continuing certain 
legal proceedings—do not rise to the level of criminal contempt and therefore 
should be treated as a civil matter, and (3) the judge’s order declaring him a 
vexatious litigator was based on an “ex parte hearing” and unreliable evidence. 
{¶ 3} Judge Corrigan has responded in writing to the affidavit, explaining 
his handling of the underlying case and denying any bias against Anderson. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 4} For the reasons explained below, no basis has been established to 
order the disqualification of Judge Corrigan. 
{¶ 5} First, some of the allegations in Anderson’s affidavit are contradicted 
by the case docket.  For example, defendant filed two motions to show cause why 
Anderson should not be held in contempt for filing a new lawsuit and several other 
motions after Judge Corrigan had declared Anderson a vexatious litigator.  After a 
hearing on defendant’s motions, Judge Corrigan determined that probable cause 
existed to conclude that Anderson was in contempt of the judge’s order, and the 
judge scheduled a criminal contempt hearing.  Thus, it is not accurate to 
characterize Judge Corrigan as the “complainant” when defendant instituted the 
contempt proceedings.  Similarly, Anderson’s claim that Judge Corrigan held an 
“ex parte hearing” to declare Anderson a vexatious litigator is misleading.  The 
docket reveals that Judge Corrigan notified the parties of the hearing date, but 
Anderson failed to appear.  Anderson’s failure to appear does not transform the 
hearing into an improper “ex parte hearing,” nor does Judge Corrigan’s decision to 
proceed with the hearing, despite Anderson’s absence, evince any bias on the 
judge’s part. 
{¶ 6} Second, Anderson has not set forth sufficient grounds for 
disqualification.  A trial court has the requisite authority to hold a party in contempt 
for failure to comply with the court’s orders, and Anderson has failed to set forth 
any specific and accurate facts demonstrating that bias or an appearance of bias 
should prevent Judge Corrigan from presiding over the contempt hearing in this 
case.  Compare State v. Weiner, 37 Ohio St.2d 11, 13, 305 N.E.2d 794 (1974) 
(appointment of another judge to preside over a contempt hearing may be warranted 
when “the alleged contempt takes the form of personal insult or vilification of the 
judge, so that there would exist the possibility of bias should the victim of such 
abuse pass judgment on the evidence”).  Moreover, whether Judge Corrigan 
lawfully declared Anderson a vexatious litigator or whether the judge appropriately 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
determined that criminal contempt sanctions are possible in this case are not issues 
that can be resolved under this statutory process for judicial disqualification.  
Therefore, the judge’s legal rulings cannot be used as evidence of bias or prejudice.  
See In re Disqualification of Floyd, 101 Ohio St.3d 1217, 2003-Ohio-7351, 803 
N.E.2d 818, ¶ 4 (“It is well established that dissatisfaction or disagreement with a 
judge’s rulings, even if those rulings may be erroneous, does not constitute bias or 
prejudice and is not grounds for the judge’s disqualification”).  The remedy for 
Anderson’s legal claims lies on appeal, not through the filing of an affidavit of 
disqualification.  In re Disqualification of Russo, 110 Ohio St.3d 1208, 2005-Ohio-
7146, 850 N.E.2d 713, ¶ 6. 
{¶ 7} Accordingly, the affidavit of disqualification is denied.  The case may 
proceed before Judge Corrigan. 
________________________