Court Opinion

ID: 9882720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:19:03.012584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:48.655332
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Brisbane v. Digeronimo, 2023-Ohio-3636.]

                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                            EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                               COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

ALPHONSO S. BRISBANE,                               :

                Relator,                            :
                                                          No. 113079
                v.                                  :

JUDGE SERGIO DIGERONIMO,                            :

               Respondent.         :
               ________________________________________

                              JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                JUDGMENT: COMPLAINT DISMISSED
                DATED: October 3, 2023

               ________________________________________

                        Writ of Mandamus and Procedendo
                                 Order No. 568307
                 ______________________________________

                                           Appearances:

                Alphonso S. Brisbane, pro se.

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J.:

               Relator, Alphonso S. Brisbane, seeks writs of mandamus and

procedendo to direct respondent, Garfield Heights Municipal Court Judge Sergio

DiGeronimo, to grant motions appealing his automatic license suspensions entered

in two cases pending before Judge DiGeronimo. Brisbane also seeks writs of

mandamus and procedendo against Judge DiGeronimo of an undefined nature. The
relief he seeks is to have this court direct “[r]espondent to weight the evidence in the

said matters above and give the [r]elator relief he seeks as the [r]elator did not wave

[sic] his right to a speedy trial. * * * [Relator] argues that his Constitutional rights

under the laws are being violated by the trial court and pray this Honorable Court

grants him the relief that he seeks.” Brisbane does not further describe what relief

he is seeking regarding this second claim. We find that Brisbane’s complaint is

fatally defective and dismiss it, sua sponte.

      I. Background

             Brisbane filed a complaint for writs of mandamus and procedendo on

August 11, 2023. There, he alleged that he is the defendant in two traffic cases

pending in the Garfield Heights Municipal Court. The complaint also asserted that

Judge DiGeronimo presides over these cases. The complaint included a case caption

that lists Brisbane as the relator and Judge DiGeronimo as the respondent.

However, the complaint did not include an address for service of the complaint and

summons for the respondent, nor was an address for service included anywhere else

in the complaint.

      II. Law and Analysis

             Sua sponte dismissal of a complaint in an action for a writ in the court

of appeals is appropriate where it “‘is frivolous or the claimant obviously cannot

prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint.’” State ex rel. Bunting v. Styer, 147

Ohio St.3d 462, 2016-Ohio-5781, 67 N.E.3d 755, ¶ 12, quoting State ex rel.

Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ronan, 124 Ohio St.3d 17, 2009-Ohio-5947, 918 N.E.2d 515,
¶ 3, quoting State ex rel. Scott v. Cleveland, 112 Ohio St.3d 324, 2006-Ohio-6573,

859 N.E.2d 923, ¶ 14, and citing State ex rel. Duran v. Kelsey, 106 Ohio St.3d 58,

2005-Ohio-3674, 831 N.E.2d 430, ¶ 7.         Fatal procedural defects mean that a

claimant obviously cannot prevail.

            In the present case, Brisbane’s complaint lacks an address for service of

the complaint. Further, the docket indicates that service of the complaint has not

been perfected more than a month after the complaint was filed.

      A complaint filed in a court has specific requirements that are not
      simply a matter of format. A civil action is commenced pursuant to
      Civ.R. 3(A) by the filing of a complaint and the service of
      process. Civ.R. 10(A) requires a complaint to have certain
      information including the full names of every party to the action and
      addresses where the complaint may be served. This requirement
      exists, in part, so that a clerk of courts has clear direction to whom and
      where service of process must be directed to ensure parties to the
      action are properly notified of the existence of the case. See Civ.R.
      4(A). This is necessary so a court can properly exercise personal
      jurisdiction over the parties. * * *. “[T]he Clerk has no duty to
      speculate about the identity or addresses of ‘interested parties’ to be
      served or furnished with process.” Carter v. Carter, 3d Dist. Paulding
      No. 11-88-13, 1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 3659, 4 (Sept. 19, 1989).

In re Writ of Mandamus (Turner), 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 112758, 2023-Ohio-

2158, ¶ 5. The failure to comply with Civ.R. 10(A)’s requirements is sufficient

grounds to dismiss the complaint. Greene v. Turner, 151 Ohio St.3d 513, 2017-

Ohio-8305, 90 N.E.3d 901, ¶ 8.

            Further, Brisbane’s complaint for mandamus was not brought in the

name of the state on the relation of the person applying, which is generally required
by R.C. 2731.04. Nikooyi v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecuting Dept., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 109716, 2020-Ohio-3730, ¶ 7.

             Finally, Brisbane’s second claim for relief in mandamus and

procedendo does not state a valid claim for relief. Brisbane does not identify a clear

legal right he possesses that Judge DiGeronimo has a duty to provide, and for which

no other adequate remedy at law exists. These are the necessary elements for a

successful claim for mandamus relief. Claims of violation of a defendant’s speedy

trial rights are the proper subject of an appeal, which constitute an adequate remedy

precluding relief in mandamus or procedendo. State ex rel. Jackim v. Ambrose, 118

Ohio St.3d 512, 2008-Ohio-3182, 890 N.E.2d 324, ¶ 6.

            Brisbane’s complaint is sua sponte dismissed. Costs to relator. The

clerk is directed to serve on the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry

upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B).

             Complaint dismissed.

_______________________________________
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., and
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR