[Cite as Black v. Ashland Cty. Prosecutor's Office , 2012-Ohio-1306.]

COURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JAMES BLACK

Petitioner-vsASHLAND COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE Respondent JUDGES: : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. : Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. : : : Case No. 2011-CA-054 : : : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Prohibition

JUDGMENT: Dismissed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 26, 2012

APPEARANCES: For Petitioner For Respondent JAMES BLACK PRO SE RAMONA FRANCESCONI ROGERS Ashland County Prosecutor BY MICHAEL D. DONATINI Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 110 Cottage St., Third Floor Ashland, OH 44805[Cite as Black v. Ashland Cty. Prosecutor's Office , 2012-Ohio-1306.]

Gwin, J. {1} Petitioner, James Black, has filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition which he has moved to amend to include a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss urging this Court to find Petitioner has named an improper Respondent and Petitioner has an adequate remedy at law. {2} In order for a writ of prohibition to issue, petitioner must prove that: (1) the lower court is about to exercise judicial authority; (2) the exercise of authority is not authorized by law; and, (3) the petitioner has no other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law if a writ of prohibition is denied. State ex rel. Keenan v. Calabrese (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 176, 178, 631 N.E.2d 119. A writ of prohibition, regarding the unauthorized exercise of judicial power, will only be granted where the judicial officer's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is patent and unambiguous. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Serv., Office of Collective Bargaining v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1990), 54 Ohio St.3d 48, 562 N.E.2d 125. State ex rel. Daniels v. Harris, 2008 WL 5197131, 1 (Ohio App. 5 Dist.). {3} The named Respondent in this case is the Ashland County Prosecutor. A writ of prohibition is used to limit judicial authority. The Ashland County Prosecutor does not have judicial authori ty, therefore, prohi bition ca nnot lie to prev ent the Ashland County Prosecutor from acting. {4} With regard to Petitioner’s habeas corpus claim, Petitioner has also failed to name a proper respondent. See Tate v. Bernard (Nov. 21, 2001), Trumbull App. No. 2001–T–0087, 2001 WL 1497206 (“the writ will lie only agains t the individual who is directly responsible for keeping the petitioner in custody”); Jackson v. State (Apr. 19,Ashland County, Case No. 2011-CA-054 3 2002), Cuyahoga App. No. 81007, 2002 WL 737495 (dismissal of petition for writ of habeas corpus appropriate when petitioner named the state rather than the sheriff—his custodian as the respondent). Petitioner has named the Ashland County Prosecutor rather than the warden or sheriff who is responsible for keeping Petitioner in custody. {5} Because neither prohibition nor habeas corpus lie against the named Respondent, the petition is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. By Gwin, J., Delaney, P.J., and Edwards, J., concur

_________________________________ HON. W. SCOTT GWIN

_________________________________ HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY

_________________________________ HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS WSG:clw 0315[Cite as Black v. Ashland Cty. Prosecutor's Office , 2012-Ohio-1306.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JAMES BLACK : : Petitioner : : : -vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY : ASHLAND COUNTY : PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE : : : Respondent : CASE NO. 2011-CA-054

For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the petition is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

_________________________________ HON. W. SCOTT GWIN

_________________________________ HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY

_________________________________ HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS