[Cite as Dicarlo v. Mohr, 2018-Ohio-4157.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 LUCAS COUNTY 

Jacob Dicarlo Court of Appeals No. L-18-1185 

 

 Relator 

v. 

Gary Mohr, Director ODRC, et al. DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Respondents Decided: October 11, 2018 

* * * * * 

 Adam H. Houser, for relator. 

* * * * * 

SINGER, J. 

{¶ 1} This case is before the court upon a complaint for original action in 

prohibition and oral argument, filed on August 29, 2018, by relator, Jacob Dicarlo. No 

response or answer was filed by respondents, Gary Mohr, Director of the Ohio 

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”), John Does, 1-5 or John Doe 

correction officers. For the reasons which follow, we dismiss relator’s complaint. 
2.

I. Background 

{¶ 2} Relator, a convicted felon, is incarcerated until the expected out date of 

2027. Relator is currently in the Lucas County Jail on charges of assault of a correction 

officer. 

{¶ 3} In the complaint, relator alleges he was incarcerated at Toledo Correctional 

Institute (“TCI”) when “he was in a dispute with another inmate and then got into an 

altercation with a correction officer in March of 2018.” 

{¶ 4} Relator further alleges on March 20, 2018, he was transferred to Southern 

Ohio Correctional Facility (“SOCF”), where he was attacked and injured by a number of 

correction officers. Relator alleges the attack was in retaliation for the assault on the 

correction officer at TCI. 

{¶ 5} Relator further alleges on April 9, 2018, he was taken to a correction 

officer’s office where he “believed he was in imminent harm of being attacked again by 

the correction officers and had to struggle to leave the office and run down the hall.” 

{¶ 6} Relator further alleges he is gravely concerned he will be returned to SOCF 

and is requesting that this court prevent ODRC from placing him in SOCF. Relator prays 

for a peremptory writ to issue ordering respondents not to place relator back in SOCF. 

II. Law

{¶ 7} The purpose of a writ of prohibition is to restrain inferior tribunals and 

courts from exceeding their jurisdiction. State ex rel. Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70, 
3.

73, 701 N.E.2d 1002 (1998). Accordingly, a writ of prohibition is an “‘extraordinary 

remedy which is customarily granted with caution and restraint, and is issued only in 

cases of necessity arising from the inadequacy of other remedies.’” (Citation omitted.) 

Id. 

{¶ 8} To be entitled to a writ of prohibition, a relator must establish that “(1) the 

[court or officer] is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of 

that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) denial of the writ will cause injury for which 

no other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law exists.” State ex rel. Henry v. 

McMonagle, 87 Ohio St.3d 543, 544, 721 N.E.2d 1051 (2000). 

{¶ 9} Judicial power has been defined as the power of a judicial officer “to decide 

and pronounce a judgment and carry it into effect in a controversy between two or more 

persons who by right bring that case before the court for its decision.” State v. Wilson, 

102 Ohio App.3d 467, 471, 657 N.E.2d 518 (2d Dist.1995). Quasi-judicial power has 

been defined as “‘the power to hear and determine controversies between the public and 

individuals that require a hearing resembling a judicial trial.’” (Citations omitted.) State 

ex rel. Miller v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 130 Ohio St.3d 24, 2011-Ohio-4623, 955 

N.E.2d 379, ¶ 13. 

{¶ 10} A prohibition action may be dismissed sua sponte and without notice if the 

court finds that the complaint is frivolous or it is obvious that the facts alleged in the 

complaint are not legally sufficient. State ex rel. Scott v. Cleveland, 112 Ohio St.3d 324, 

2006-Ohio-6573, 859 N.E.2d 923, ¶ 14. 
4.

III. Analysis and Conclusion 

{¶ 11} The first element which relator must establish for a writ of prohibition is 

that respondents are preparing to use judicial or quasi-judicial authority or power. Upon 

review, relator has not alleged that respondents, the director of ODRC or its employees, 

are about to conduct a hearing regarding where or in which facility to place relator. 

{¶ 12} The second element which relator must establish is that the exercise of 

respondents’ power is unauthorized by law. Upon review, relator has not alleged that 

respondents are not authorized by law to place relator in SOCF. 

{¶ 13} Relator has not demonstrated that he will be able to prove that respondents 

would be engaging in a judicial or quasi-judicial function or that the exercise of 

respondents’ power is not authorized by law. Accordingly, relator is unable to satisfy all 

of the elements necessary for a writ of prohibition to issue. We therefore find sua sponte 

dismissal of relator’s complaint is warranted as it is obvious that the facts alleged in the 

complaint are not legally sufficient. Costs to relator. 

{¶ 14} It is so ordered. 

Writ denied. 
5.

 Dicarlo v. Mohr 

 C.A. No. L-18-1185 

Arlene Singer, J. _______________________________ 

JUDGE 

Thomas J. Osowik, J. 

_______________________________ 

Christine E. Mayle, P.J. JUDGE 

CONCUR. 

_______________________________ 

JUDGE