[Cite as In re Disqualification of Swift, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2019-Ohio-1626.] 

IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF SWIFT. 

IN RE ESTATE OF ZWINGLER. 

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Swift, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2019-Ohio-1626.] 

Judges—Affidavits of disqualification—R.C. 2101.39 and 2701.03—Affiant failed 

to demonstrate bias or prejudice—Disqualification denied.

(No. 19-AP-029—Decided March 8, 2019.) 

ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Mahoning County Court of Common 

Pleas, Probate Division, Case No. 13 ES 364. 

____________ 

O’CONNOR, C.J. 

{¶ 1} Scott A. Melton has filed an affidavit with the clerk of this court 

pursuant to R.C. 2701.03 and 2101.39 seeking to disqualify Judge Thomas A. 

Swift, a retired judge sitting by assignment, from presiding over any further 

proceedings in the above-referenced case. Judge Swift recently scheduled a hearing 

for Mr. Melton to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. 

{¶ 2} Mr. Melton claims that Judge Swift should be disqualified to avoid 

any appearance of impropriety created by the judge’s relationship with Judge 

Robert Rusu, the current judge of the Mahoning County Probate Court, who 

recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. According to Mr. Melton, 

the judges have a close relationship and “[e]very single probate case in which Judge 

Rusu has recused himself during 2018 has been assigned to Judge Swift at Judge 

Rusu’s direction.” Mr. Melton also asserts that by scheduling the show-cause 

hearing, Judge Swift has prejudged the issues, and Mr. Melton believes that another 

attorney involved in the underlying case has engaged in forum shopping. 

{¶ 3} Judge Swift has responded in writing to the affidavit and requests that 

it be denied. The judge states that prior to being assigned to this case, he did not 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

know any of the parties or attorneys, and he does not believe that his scheduling of 

a hearing demonstrates bias or prejudice. 

{¶ 4} For the reasons explained below, no basis has been established to 

order the disqualification of Judge Swift. 

{¶ 5} First, Judge Swift’s assignment to this case does not create an 

appearance of impropriety. Mr. Melton is correct that a disqualified or recused 

judge ordinarily should not select his or her successor. See Guidelines for 

Assignment of Judges, Section 2.5, https://www.sc.ohio.gov/JCS/ 

judicialAssignment/judgeAssignGuide.pdf (accessed Mar. 27, 2019) (“if the 

administrative judge has recused from a case, the administrative judge may not 

request a specific judge to be assigned to that case”); Flamm, Judicial 

Disqualification, Section 22.4, at 653 (2d Ed.2007) (“proper procedure ordinarily 

requires that a judge should not attempt to intervene in the selection of his 

successor—much less assign the case to another judge” [footnotes omitted]). But 

here, the chief justice assigned Judge Swift to the underlying case—not Judge Rusu. 

And although it is true that Judge Swift regularly hears cases in the Mahoning 

County Probate Court as a visiting judge, Mr. Melton has failed to sufficiently 

explain why Judge Swift’s professional or personal relationship with Judge Rusu 

would cause an objective observer to harbor serious doubts about Judge Swift’s 

impartiality in this matter. See In re Disqualification of Lewis, 117 Ohio St.3d 

1227, 2004-Ohio-7359, 884 N.E.2d 1082, ¶ 8 (setting forth the proper test for 

disqualifying a judge based on an appearance of impropriety). 

{¶ 6} Second, the mere fact that Judge Swift scheduled the show-cause 

hearing does not establish that he is biased or that he has prejudged any issues in 

the case. Nor does Mr. Melton’s belief that an attorney engaged in forum shopping 

support the judge’s removal. “A judge is presumed to follow the law and not to be 

biased, and the appearance of bias or prejudice must be compelling to overcome 

these presumptions.” In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 1241, 2003-
January Term, 2019 

3

Ohio-5489, 798 N.E.2d 23, ¶ 5. Mr. Melton’s allegations have not overcome those 

presumptions. He may have other remedies if he believes that the probate court 

lacks jurisdiction over certain claims or if the court failed to properly notify him of 

the scope of the show-cause hearing. But it is well settled that an “affidavit of 

disqualification addresses the narrow issue of the possible bias or prejudice of a 

judge. It 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. Without more, it is outside the scope of this proceeding to review a probate 

court’s jurisdiction or the propriety of a judge’s decision to schedule a hearing. 

{¶ 7} The affidavit of disqualification is denied. The case may proceed 

before Judge Swift. 

________________________