Court Opinion

ID: 9926223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 14:05:56.589756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:12.871997
License: Public Domain

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State
ex rel. Edward Smith Corp. v. Marsh, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-201.]

                                           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. 2024-OHIO-201
THE STATE EX REL. EDWARD SMITH CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. MARSH,
                               JUDGE, ET AL., APPELLEES.
  [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
    may be cited as State ex rel. Edward Smith Corp. v. Marsh, Slip Opinion
                                   No. 2024-Ohio-201.]
Prohibition—Inmate’s complaint fails to contain a short and plain statement of a
        claim showing that he is entitled to writ—Court of appeals’ dismissal of
        complaint affirmed.
 (No. 2023-0711—Submitted December 12, 2023—Decided January 24, 2024.)
     APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-230127.
                                   __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 1} Appellant, Edward Smith,1 filed an original action for a writ of
prohibition in the First District Court of Appeals against appellees, Hamilton

1. The caption of the complaint identifies the relator as “State of Ohio, ex rel., Edward Smith,
Corporation/Edward Smith Construction Co.” However, the body of the complaint states that
                               SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

County Court of Common Pleas Judge Melba D. Marsh, former Hamilton County
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Gus Leon, and Randall M. Rozier, an FBI agent.
The First District dismissed the complaint, finding it so incomprehensible that it
failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We affirm.
               FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
        {¶ 2} Smith is currently incarcerated at the Grafton Correctional Institution.
In 1999, he was convicted of murder in the Hamilton County Court of Common
Pleas and was sentenced to a prison term of 15 years to life. His conviction was
affirmed on direct appeal.
        {¶ 3} In March 2023, Smith filed a 26-page complaint for a writ of
prohibition in the First District. While Smith’s complaint and briefs are not a model
of clarity, his claim appears to be that he should have been tried in a housing
division rather than the general division of a common pleas court and that the trial
court therefore lacked jurisdiction to convict him. Smith also appears to argue that
Rozier unlawfully entered his property and investigated him without authority to
do so. Finally, he characterizes himself as a corporation that, he asserts, was tried
illegally in absentia. As for relief, he requests that his conviction be vacated. Smith
does not explain what relief he is seeking against Judge Marsh, who was not the
judge who presided over the trial that resulted in his conviction.
        {¶ 4} Judge Marsh and Leon filed a motion to dismiss under Civ.R.
12(B)(6). The First District granted the motion and dismissed the case. The First
District’s opinion consists of the following single paragraph:

                This case is before the Court on [a] motion to dismiss the
        complaint for writ of prohibition.           “A complaint may be so
        incomprehensible as to fail to state a claim upon which relief may

“Edward Smith” is the relator, Smith signs his pleadings as an individual, and the relief the
complaint requests concerns him personally.

                                             2
                                January Term, 2024

         be granted.” Guess v. Toledo Blade Newspaper Co., 6th Dist. Lucas
         No. L-97-1276, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 439 (Feb. 6, 1998). In this
         case the Court cannot discern from the complaint what facts relator
         is alleging and what relief he is seeking. The motion to dismiss is,
         therefore, granted. Costs taxed in accordance with Civ.R. 54.

         {¶ 5} After the First District issued its opinion, Smith filed a motion for
leave to file an amended complaint. The First District denied the motion because
it had already dismissed the case when Smith filed it. Smith has appealed as of
right.
                               LEGAL ANALYSIS
         {¶ 6} To be entitled to a writ of prohibition, Smith must show by clear and
convincing evidence (1) the exercise of judicial power, (2) the lack of authority for
the exercise of that power, and (3) an injury that would result from denial of the
writ for which no adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of the law. State
ex rel. Reynolds v. Kirby, 172 Ohio St.3d 273, 2023-Ohio-782, 223 N.E.3d 417,
¶ 9. We will affirm a court of appeals’ dismissal of a writ petition for a failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted “if, after presuming the truth of all
factual allegations of the complaint and making all reasonable inferences in [the
relator’s] favor, it appears beyond doubt that he can prove no set of facts entitling
him to the requested extraordinary writ of prohibition.” State ex rel. Hemsley v.
Unruh, 128 Ohio St.3d 307, 2011-Ohio-226, 943 N.E.2d 1014, ¶ 8.
         {¶ 7} The First District determined that Smith’s complaint was so
incomprehensible that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
We affirm on the same basis. See Guess, 1998 WL 65500, at *1 (“a complaint may
be so incomprehensible as to fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted”). Although largely unintelligible, Smith’s complaint appears to allege that
the trial court was acting as a mayor’s court or a municipal court, and it asserts that

                                          3
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

only a court’s housing division would have jurisdiction over the charges filed
against him. The complaint contains citations to New York criminal statutes and a
federal statute concerning supplemental jurisdiction. It states that a corporation
was tried in absentia, and Smith at times refers to himself as a corporation. Civ.R.
8(A) requires that pleadings contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the party is entitled to relief.” Smith’s complaint is neither short nor
plain.
         {¶ 8} To the extent that Smith’s claims can be discerned, he does not state
grounds that would entitle him to a writ of prohibition. He does not state facts
showing that appellees exercised or are about to exercise judicial power. The
Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas has subject-matter jurisdiction over
felony cases, see Smith v. Sheldon, 157 Ohio St.3d 1, 2019-Ohio-1677, 131 N.E.3d
1, ¶ 8, and a judge of that court would not lack subject-matter jurisdiction to convict
Smith of, or sentence him for, murder.
         {¶ 9} Finally, Smith argues that the First District improperly denied his
motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The court had already dismissed
Smith’s complaint when he filed his motion for leave to amend, so the court
properly denied the motion. See Stroud v. Four E Properties, Inc., 1st Dist.
Hamilton No. C-170215, 2018-Ohio-1910, ¶ 18 (noting that a motion for leave to
amend is not among the postjudgment motions permitted by the Civil Rules).
                                   CONCLUSION
         {¶ 10} Smith’s complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of a
claim showing that he is entitled to a writ of prohibition. We therefore affirm the
First District Court of Appeals’ judgment dismissing Smith’s complaint.
                                                                  Judgment affirmed.
         KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and
BRUNNER, JJ., concur.
         DETERS, J., not participating.

                                          4
                                January Term, 2024

                                _________________
        Edward Smith, pro se.
        Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Keith
Sauter, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees Judge Melba Marsh and Gus
Leon.
                                _________________

                                        5