Court Opinion

ID: 9893198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-26 13:08:12.552692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:28.736943
License: Public Domain

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State
ex rel. Simpson v. Melnick, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3864.]

                                           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. 2023-OHIO-3864
 THE STATE EX REL . SIMPSON, APPELLANT , v. MELNICK, JUDGE, APPELLEE.
  [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
       may be cited as State ex rel. Simpson v. Melnick, Slip Opinion No.
                                     2023-Ohio-3864.]
Mandamus—Prohibition—Writ of prohibition sought to prevent common-pleas-
        court judge from exercising jurisdiction in contempt proceedings, but
        complaint failed to state a valid claim in prohibition—Writ of mandamus
        sought jury trial in contempt proceedings—Generally, there is no right to a
        jury trial in contempt proceedings unless a long term of imprisonment is
        involved—Relator has adequate remedy in ordinary course of law by
        appealing an adverse judgment in contempt proceedings—Motion to
        dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was correctly granted—Court of appeals’
        judgment affirmed.
   (No. 2023-0504—Submitted August 22, 2023—Decided October 26, 2023.)
     APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 29554,
                                      2023-Ohio-1236.
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

                               __________________
       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 1} Appellant, Charles J. Simpson, appeals the Second District Court of
Appeals’ judgment dismissing his complaint for writs of mandamus and
prohibition. Because Simpson failed to state a valid claim for either writ, we affirm.
              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       {¶ 2} This case arises from a postjudgment contempt motion filed against
Simpson in Grande Voiture D’Ohio La Societe Des 40 Hommes Et 8 Chevaux v.
Montgomery Cty. Voiture No. 34 La Societe Des 40 Hommes Et 8 Chevaux,
Montgomery C.P. case No. 2018 CV 01457. Simpson is a defendant in that case.
Appellee, Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Judge Kimberly A.
Melnick, is the judge assigned to that case. The plaintiff in that case (“Grande
Voiture”) filed a motion for an order finding Simpson in contempt of the trial
court’s order granting declaratory and injunctive relief in Grande Voiture’s favor.
In response to Grande Voiture’s contempt motion, Simpson filed an answer,
counterclaim, and jury demand. Judge Melnick granted Grande Voiture’s motion
to strike Simpson’s answer and counterclaim because Grande Voiture’s contempt
motion was not a pleading—i.e., a complaint—to which a responsive pleading from
Simpson was permitted. Judge Melnick also struck the jury demand on the basis
that there is no right to a jury trial in contempt proceedings.
       {¶ 3} Simpson filed an original action in the court of appeals, seeking a
peremptory writ of prohibition forbidding Judge Melnick from proceeding with the
contempt hearing without allowing a jury trial and without considering the answer
and counterclaim. The court sua sponte denied Simpson’s request for a peremptory
writ. 2023-Ohio-1236, ¶ 9, fn. 4. The court further noted that Simpson’s prayer
for relief had not requested a permanent writ of prohibition, stating that “to the
extent that Simpson [sought] a permanent writ of prohibition, his claim [had] no
merit.” Id.

                                           2
                               January Term, 2023

       {¶ 4} In the complaint, Simpson also requested a writ of mandamus
compelling Judge Melnick to proceed “by jury trial” on the issues and claims of the
parties in the case before her. Judge Melnick filed a motion to dismiss under Civ.R.
12(B)(6), which Simpson opposed. The court of appeals granted the motion to
dismiss, holding that Simpson could prove no set of facts entitling him to relief in
mandamus. 2023-Ohio-1236 at ¶ 9. Simpson appealed to this court as of right.
                                   ANALYSIS
                                Prohibition Claim
       {¶ 5} To be entitled to a writ of prohibition, Simpson must establish that (1)
Judge Melnick is about to exercise or has exercised judicial power, (2) Judge
Melnick’s exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) denial of the writ
would result in injury for which no adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course
of law. State ex rel. Jones v. Paschke, 168 Ohio St.3d 93, 2022-Ohio-2427, 195
N.E.3d 1031, ¶ 6. Simpson is not required to satisfy the third element if Judge
Melnick patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction. Id.
       {¶ 6} Simpson’s complaint does not state a valid claim in prohibition.
“Prohibition will generally lie only for an absence of subject-matter jurisdiction.”
State ex rel. Nyamusevya v. Hawkins, 165 Ohio St.3d 22, 2021-Ohio-1122, 175
N.E.3d 495, ¶ 16. In this case, Simpson is not challenging Judge Melnick’s subject-
matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the contempt matter before her. Nor could he: the
trial court has both the statutory authority under R.C. 2705.02(A) and the inherent
power to punish the disobedience of its orders in contempt proceedings. Zakany v.
Zakany, 9 Ohio St.3d 192, 459 N.E.2d 870 (1984), syllabus. Rather than attacking
subject-matter jurisdiction, Simpson is arguing that Judge Melnick lacks authority
to hold contempt proceedings without considering his answer and counterclaim and
without honoring his jury demand. With these arguments, Simpson is contending
that Judge Melnick erred in her exercise of jurisdiction, for which a writ of
prohibition will not lie. See State ex rel. Sponaugle v. Hein, 153 Ohio St.3d 560,

                                         3
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2018-Ohio-3155, 108 N.E.3d 1089, ¶ 24. The court of appeals correctly denied
Simpson’s peremptory prohibition claim.
                                 Mandamus Claim
       {¶ 7} This court reviews de novo a court of appeals’ Civ.R. 12(B)(6)
dismissal of an extraordinary-writ action. State ex rel. Zander v. Judge of Summit
Cty. Common Pleas Court, 156 Ohio St.3d 466, 2019-Ohio-1704, 129 N.E.3d 401,
¶ 4. Dismissal of a mandamus complaint is appropriate if, taking all factual
allegations in the complaint as true, it appears beyond doubt that the relator can
prove no set of facts warranting relief. Id.
       {¶ 8} To obtain a writ of mandamus, Simpson must demonstrate (1) a clear
legal right to the relief requested, (2) a clear legal duty on Judge Melnick’s part to
perform the requested act, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of the law. State ex rel. Cherry v. Breaux, 169 Ohio St.3d 376, 2022-Ohio-
1885, 205 N.E.3d 450, ¶ 8. Simpson contends that he has a clear legal right to a
jury trial in the contempt proceeding. His argument lacks merit in this case.
       {¶ 9} Generally, there is no right to a jury trial in contempt proceedings
unless “a long term of imprisonment is involved.” Cincinnati v. Cincinnati Dist.
Council 51, Am. Fedn. of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps., AFL-CIO, 35 Ohio St.2d 197,
202, 299 N.E.2d 686 (1973). Simpson does not allege any set of facts in his
complaint to suggest that imprisonment, much less a long term of imprisonment, is
a possible contempt sanction. Indeed, the record before us reveals that Grande
Voiture sought monetary contempt sanctions.
       {¶ 10} Moreover, Simpson has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of the law: he may appeal an adverse judgment in the contempt proceeding.
“[A]ppealing a contempt order is an adequate remedy at law which will result in
denial of the writ.” State ex rel. Mancino v. Campbell, 66 Ohio St.3d 217, 220, 611
N.E.2d 319 (1993).

                                          4
                               January Term, 2023

                                CONCLUSION
       {¶ 11} For the foregoing reasons, the court of appeals correctly rejected
Simpson’s peremptory prohibition claim. Simpson also failed to state a valid claim
for relief in mandamus. We therefore affirm the Second District Court of Appeals’
judgment.
                                                              Judgment affirmed.
       KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER,
and DETERS, JJ., concur.
                              _________________
       Charles J. Simpson, pro se.
       Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and Anu
Sharma, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
                              _________________

                                        5