[Cite as Mobley v. O'Donnell, 2022-Ohio-908.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

Alphonso D. Mobley, Jr., : 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 21AP-343 

 (C.P.C. No. 21CV-1363)

v. : 

 (ACCELERATED CALENDAR) 

Judge Colleen O'Donnell et al., : 

 

 Defendants-Appellees. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on March 22, 2022 

 

On brief: Alphonso D. Mobley, Jr., pro se. 

On brief: G. Gary Tyack, Prosecuting Attorney, and 

Bryan B. Lee, for appellees. 

 

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 

LUPER SCHUSTER, P.J. 

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Alphonso D. Mobley, Jr., appeals from a judgment of the 

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas dismissing Mobley's action against defendantsappellees, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Colleen O'Donnell and former 

Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney Ron O'Brien. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History 

{¶ 2} This matter relates to Mobley's conviction and sentence in Franklin C.P. No. 

16CR-2061. In that case, Mobley pleaded guilty to aggravated arson with a firearm 

specification and criminal use of an explosive device, and the trial court sentenced Mobley 

to the jointly recommended 14 years in prison. State v. Mobley, 10th Dist. No. 18AP-23, 

2018-Ohio-3880. Mobley did not timely appeal the judgment of conviction and sentence. 

Id. Over one year later, Mobley requested leave to file a delayed appeal, which this court 
No. 21AP-343 2 

denied because he did not present a reasonable explanation for the delay. State v. Mobley, 

10th Dist. No. 18AP-539 (Oct. 25, 2018) (memorandum decision). 

{¶ 3} Since the filing of the judgment of conviction and sentence, Mobley has 

engaged in frequent, but unavailing, litigation concerning that judgment, including filing 

multiple motions to withdraw his guilty plea and lawsuits against the judge who presided 

over his case, Judge O'Donnell, and the case's prosecutor, O'Brien. See State ex rel. Mobley 

v. O'Donnell, 10th Dist. No. 20AP-193, 2021-Ohio-715 (denying Mobley's requests for writs 

of mandamus and procedendo ordering Judge O'Donnell to issue a final judgment 

concerning his motion to set aside his conviction and sentence); State v. Mobley, 10th Dist. 

No. 20AP-350, 2021-Ohio-492 (affirming trial court's denial of Mobley's December 2019 

motion to withdraw his guilty plea); Mobley v. Supreme Court of Ohio, 10th Dist. No. 

20AP-292, 2021-Ohio-391 (affirming trial court judgment dismissing Mobley's lawsuit 

against the Supreme Court of Ohio relating to that court's dismissal of his habeas corpus 

petition); Mobley v. O'Donnell, 10th Dist. No. 19AP-440, 2020-Ohio-469 ("Mobley 10th 

Dist. No. 19AP-440") (affirming dismissal of Mobley's May 2019 action against Judge 

O'Donnell, O'Brien, an assistant prosecuting attorney, a former assistant prosecuting 

attorney, and an assistant public defender, seeking a declaration that misconduct by these 

defendants resulted in breaches of his plea agreement, injunctive relief that would require 

the trial court to vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence, and monetary relief); 

State ex rel. Mobley v. O'Donnell, 10th Dist. No. 19AP-370, 2020-Ohio-251 (denying 

Mobley's requested writs for mandamus and prohibition concerning Judge O'Donnell's 

continued exercise of judicial authority); State v. Mobley, 10th Dist. No. 18AP-23, 2018-

Ohio-3880 (affirming trial court's denial of Mobley's October 2017 motion to withdraw his 

guilty plea); Mobley v. O'Donnell, S.D.Ohio No. 2:20-cv-3037, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

224927 (Dec. 1, 2020) (dismissing Mobley's complaint against Judge O'Donnell and 

O'Brien concerning their respective roles in Mobley's guilty plea proceedings and 

sentencing); Mobley v. O'Donnell, S.D.Ohio No. 2:20-cv-1175, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67274 

(Apr. 16, 2020) (same). 

{¶ 4} On March 4, 2021, Mobley again filed suit against Judge O'Donnell and 

O'Brien relating to their conduct in connection with his guilty plea and sentence in Franklin 

C.P. No. 16CR-2061. Judge O'Donnell and O'Brien moved for dismissal pursuant to Civ.R. 
No. 21AP-343 3 

12(B)(6) for Mobley's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In April 

2021, Mobley filed an amended complaint concerning his criminal case, naming "State of 

Ohio" as the sole defendant. In May 2021, Mobley filed a second amended complaint 

concerning his criminal case, again naming "State of Ohio" as the sole defendant. And in 

June 2021, Mobley filed a third amended complaint, which was later stricken from the 

record. Judge O'Donnell and O'Brien opposed Mobley's attempts to amend his complaint, 

on both procedural and substantive grounds. 

{¶ 5} On June 15, 2021, the trial court granted Judge O'Donnell and O'Brien's 

Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss Mobley's original complaint. The trial court determined 

that Mobley's first and second amended complaints were not properly filed, and thus could 

not be considered and that, even if considered, they failed to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted. The trial court also ordered that Mobley's third amended complaint be 

stricken from the record. On June 23, 2021, the trial court entered final judgment 

dismissing Mobley's action in its entirety, finding that Mobley failed to present a justiciable 

controversy necessary for declaratory relief, and that Judge O'Donnell and O'Brien were 

absolutely immune from Mobley's claims. 

{¶ 6} Mobley timely appeals. 

II. Assignments of Error 

{¶ 7} Mobley assigns the following errors for our review: 

[1.] Trial court abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter 

of law when it determined that: (1) Appellant allegations are 

essentially only an attack on the validity of his conviction and 

sentence in his underlying criminal case; and (2) fails to raise 

the justiciable controversy necessary for a declaratory 

judgment action. 

[2.] The Trial court erred as a matter of law when it determined 

that Judge Colleen O'Donnell and Ron O'Brien retains absolute 

immunity. 
No. 21AP-343 4 

III. Discussion 

A. Standard of Review – Civ.R. 12(B)(6) 

{¶ 8} Mobley generally challenges the trial court's dismissal of his March 2021 

complaint1 against Judge O'Donnell and O'Brien pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Under Civ.R. 

12(B)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted. A Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of the 

complaint. O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 245 

(1975). In ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), the court must 

construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, presume all factual 

allegations in the complaint are true, and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the 

plaintiff. Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190, 192 (1988). The dismissal of a 

complaint for failure to state a claim is proper when it appears, beyond doubt, that the 

plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief. Celeste v. Wiseco Piston, 151 Ohio 

App.3d 554, 2003-Ohio-703, ¶ 12 (11th Dist.). When reviewing a decision on a Civ.R. 

12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, this court's review standard is de novo. Foreman v. Ohio Dept. 

of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 14AP-15, 2014-Ohio-2793, ¶ 9. 

B. Analysis 

{¶ 9} In his first assignment of error, Mobley contends the trial court erred in 

finding that his claims against Judge O'Donnell and O'Brien were in substance an attack on 

the validity of his conviction and therefore his claims did not raise the justiciable 

controversy necessary for a declaratory judgment action. We disagree. 

{¶ 10} The trial court correctly concluded that Mobley's declaratory judgment action 

against Judge O'Donnell and O'Brien was an improper attempt to collaterally attack his 

conviction and sentence. Mobley argues that he only sought a determination that his plea 

agreement was breached, not that his guilty plea was invalid. Indeed, Mobley did request 

a threshold determination that his plea agreement was breached. But the gravamen of 

Mobley's complaint against Judge O'Donnell and O'Brien was to seek a declaration that 

1 Mobley does not assign as error the trial court's determination that his first and second amended 

complaints were not properly before it and therefore could not be considered, or the trial court's decision 

to strike from the record his third amended complaint. Thus, the issue before us is whether the trial court 

properly dismissed Mobley's original complaint seeking declaratory relief. 
No. 21AP-343 5 

they engaged in conduct that invalidated his guilty plea and sentencing. And as this court 

noted in one of Mobley's prior appeals, a "declaratory judgment action cannot be used to 

collaterally attack a conviction or sentence." Mobley 10th Dist. No. 19AP-440 at ¶ 14. Thus, 

Mobley's complaint did not present a justiciable controversy capable of resolution by 

declaratory judgment, and the trial court properly granted the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to 

dismiss. 

{¶ 11} Accordingly, Mobley's first assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 12} Mobley's second assignment of error alleges the trial court erred in 

determining Judge O'Donnell and O'Brien have absolute immunity from his claims in this 

action. Pursuant to our above analysis, we find the trial court properly dismissed Mobley's 

action. Thus, our disposition of Mobley's first assignment of error renders as moot his 

second assignment of error. 

IV. Disposition 

{¶ 13} Having overruled Mobley's first assignment of error, and finding as moot 

Mobley's second assignment of error, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court 

of Common Pleas. 

Judgment affirmed. 

JAMISON and NELSON, JJ., concur. 

NELSON, J., retired, formerly of the Tenth Appellate District, 

assigned to active duty under authority of Ohio Constitution, 

Article IV, Section 6(C).