[Cite as Black v. McKinley Twp., 2017-Ohio-7390.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAWRENCE BLACK JUDGES:
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
Petitioner Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
-vs-
Case No. 2017CA00133
TOWNSHIP OF MCKINLEY,
CITY OF CANTON
OPINION
Respondents
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Prohibition
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 28, 2017
APPEARANCES:
For Petitioner For Respondents
LAWRENCE BLACK, PRO SE NO APPEARANCE
1511 Maple Ave N.E.
Canton, Ohio 44705
Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00133 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Petitioner, Lawrence Black, has filed a “Notice.” The pleading is not in a
complaint or petition format. The notice does not contain any requested relief. The notice
reads in its entirety, “Notice to this Court of Appeals of Lawrence Black’s Peremptory Writ
of Prohibition. Judge Mary Falvey is forcing proceeding on Lawrence Black which was
filed first by Darla S. Hinderer, and letter was to Judge Falvey 12 Jul 17. Darla S. Hinderer
writting (sic) dismissed charges, Judge Falvey is attempting to try and convict.” (Citations
omitted). Attached to the notice is what appears to be a proposed order for a peremptory
writ of prohibition.
{¶2} In order for a writ of prohibition to issue, petitioner must prove that: (1) the
lower court is about to exercise judicial authority; (2) the exercise of authority is not
authorized by law; and, (3) the petitioner has no other adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law if a writ of prohibition is denied. State ex rel. Keenan v. Calabrese (1994),
69 Ohio St.3d 176, 178, 631 N.E.2d 119. A writ of prohibition, regarding the unauthorized
exercise of judicial power, will only be granted where the judicial officer's lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction is patent and unambiguous. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Serv., Office of
Collective Bargaining v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1990), 54 Ohio St.3d 48, 562 N.E.2d
125.
{¶3} The named Respondents in this case are the Township of McKinley and
City of Canton. A writ of prohibition is used to limit judicial authority. The township and
city do not have judicial authority, therefore, prohibition cannot lie to prevent the township
or city from acting.
Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00133 3
{¶4} Because prohibition does not lie against the named Respondents, the
cause is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
By: Hoffman, J.
Delaney, P.J. and
Wise, Earle, J. concur