[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

ex rel. Henderson v. Sweeney, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-3413.] 

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. 2016-OHIO-3413

THE STATE EX REL. HENDERSON, APPELLANT, v. SWEENEY, JUDGE, ET AL.,

APPELLEES. 

THE STATE EX REL. HENDERSON, APPELLANT, v. SWEENEY, JUDGE, ET AL.,

APPELLEES. 

THE STATE EX REL. HENDERSON, APPELLANT, v. SUTULA, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State ex rel. Henderson v. Sweeney, Slip Opinion No. 

2016-Ohio-3413.] 

Prohibition and Procedendo—R.C. 2323.52—Appellant failed to obtain leave to 

continue litigating his pending complaints after he was declared to be a 

vexatious litigator—Court of appeals’ dismissals of complaints affirmed. 

(Nos. 2015-1218, 2015-1253, and 2015-1338—Submitted March 8, 2016—

Decided June 16, 2016.) 

APPEALS from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, Nos. 102784, 2015-

Ohio-2282; 102541, 2015-Ohio-2412; and 102840, 2015-Ohio-2710. 

_____________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Troy Henderson, appeals from the judgments of the Eighth 

District Court of Appeals dismissing his two complaints for writs of prohibition 

and his complaint for a writ of procedendo. Because these appeals raise similar 

issues, we consolidate them for purposes of decision. 

{¶ 2} We affirm the judgments of the court of appeals and deny 

Henderson’s motions for leave to file his appeals as well as the motions to strike 

Henderson’s motions that were filed by appellees, Judges Kristin Sweeney, Jerry 

Hayes, and John Sutula and the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court. 

Facts 

{¶ 3} In case No. 2015-1218, Henderson filed in the Eighth District Court 

of Appeals a complaint for a writ of prohibition to restrain Judge Sweeney and the 

Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court from “presiding and proceeding in any litigation 

regarding contempt charges” in an action pending in the juvenile court. The court 

of appeals dismissed the complaint sua sponte, primarily on the basis that 

Henderson continued to litigate the case after he had been declared a vexatious 

litigator in Henderson v. Alamby, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-13-803590, on April 21, 

2015, without filing an application for leave to proceed in the action as required by 

R.C. 2323.52(F). 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102784, 2015-Ohio-2282, ¶ 1-5. The 

court also concluded that the complaint lacked merit because it was within the 

juvenile court’s jurisdiction to hold the contempt hearing. Id. at ¶ 6-12. In addition, 

the court noted that res judicata barred Henderson’s complaint, because in a 

previous prohibition case filed by Henderson, the court already had addressed the 

claims raised in his complaint. Id. at ¶ 13-14. Henderson appealed. 

{¶ 4} In case No. 2015-1253, Henderson filed in the Eighth District a 

complaint for a writ of procedendo to compel Judges Sweeney and Hayes and the 

Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court to rule on various motions in the juvenile 

proceeding. Judges Sweeney and Hayes and the juvenile court filed a motion for 
January Term, 2016 

3

summary judgment, and Henderson responded with his own summary-judgment 

motion. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint, because Henderson 

continued to litigate the procedendo case without obtaining leave to proceed after 

he was declared a vexatious litigator. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102541, 2015-Ohio2412, ¶ 1-5. The court of appeals stated that it also would have been appropriate to 

dismiss the complaint as moot and on the merits. Id. at ¶ 6-10. Henderson 

appealed. 

{¶ 5} Finally, in case No. 2015-1338, Henderson filed in the Eighth District 

a complaint for a writ of prohibition seeking to prohibit Judge Sutula from 

exercising jurisdiction in the vexatious-litigator action in the Cuyahoga County 

Court of Common Pleas. Judge Sutula filed a motion for summary judgment, and 

Henderson responded with his own summary-judgment motion. The court of 

appeals granted Judge Sutula’s motion for summary judgment, because Henderson, 

although having been declared a vexatious litigator, had continued litigating the 

prohibition action without obtaining leave to proceed. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 

102840, 2015-Ohio-2710, ¶ 10-11. Henderson appealed. 

Analysis 

{¶ 6} We affirm the judgments in all three cases before us because 

Henderson has been declared a vexatious litigator and has failed to fulfill the 

statutory requirements before continuing litigation in his original actions. R.C. 

2323.52(D)(3) provides: 

A person who is subject to an order entered pursuant to 

division (D)(1) of this section may not institute legal proceedings in 

a court of appeals, continue any legal proceedings that the vexatious 

litigator had instituted in a court of appeals prior to entry of the 

order, or make any application, other than the application for leave 

to proceed allowed by division (F)(2) of this section, in any legal 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

proceedings instituted by the vexatious litigator or another person in 

a court of appeals without first obtaining leave of the court of 

appeals to proceed pursuant to division (F)(2) of this section. 

(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2323.52(F)(2) provides that a vexatious litigator “who 

seeks to institute or continue any legal proceedings in a court of appeals or to make 

an application, other than an application for leave to proceed * * * shall file an 

application for leave to proceed in the court of appeals in which the legal 

proceedings would be instituted or are pending.” (Emphasis added.) In addition, 

R.C. 2323.52(I) provides: 

Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or 

otherwise that a person found to be a vexatious litigator under this 

section has instituted, continued, or made an application in legal 

proceedings without obtaining leave to proceed from the appropriate 

court of common pleas or court of appeals to do so under division 

(F) of this section, the court in which the legal proceedings are 

pending shall dismiss the proceedings or application of the 

vexatious litigator. 

(Emphasis added.) 

{¶ 7} Henderson’s various complaints were filed before he was found to be 

a vexatious litigator on April 21, 2015, but after that date, Henderson was required 

to obtain leave to continue litigating his pending complaints for writs of prohibition 

and procedendo. He failed to do so in all three cases. Thus, it was appropriate for 

the court of appeals in each case to dismiss the original actions on the basis of R.C. 

2323.52. We therefore affirm the judgments of the court of appeals. 
January Term, 2016 

5

{¶ 8} In all three cases, Henderson also filed motions in this court for leave 

to appeal, and appellees filed motions to strike those motions. In case No. 2015-

1338, the motion to strike was denied as moot because the motion for leave to 

proceed was not required. 143 Ohio St.3d 1471, 2015-Ohio-3855, 37 N.E.3d 1254. 

The requirements of R.C. 2323.52 do not apply in this court. See R.C. 2323.52(F). 

Indeed, this court has its own rule regarding vexatious litigators, S.Ct.Prac.R. 

4.03(B), and Henderson has not been named a vexatious litigator in this court. 

Therefore, he does not need permission to appeal here. Henderson’s motions for 

leave are denied in all three cases, and appellees’ motions to strike are denied as 

moot in case Nos. 2015-1218 and 2015-1253. 

Judgments affirmed 

and motions denied. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

 Troy Henderson, pro se. 

Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nora E. 

Graham, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees. 

_________________