State ex rel. Shekina v. Oldfield

Summary

The Ninth District Court of Appeals of Ohio dismissed Bahtyah Ahyahlah Shekina’s petition for a writ of prohibition against Judge Joy Malek Oldfield. The court held that alleged defects in the underlying custody order and indictment did not deprive the common pleas court of subject-matter jurisdiction, and that lack of personal jurisdiction could not support prohibition. A concurrence in judgment only would have dismissed the petition as moot because the indictment had already been dismissed.

Holdings

1. The alleged invalidity of the domestic-relations custody order did not establish that the common pleas court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the felony criminal case. The allegation concerned the judge's exercise of otherwise existing jurisdiction rather than an absence of jurisdiction.
2. An alleged lack of personal jurisdiction cannot be the basis for a writ of prohibition because prohibition tests and determines subject-matter jurisdiction, not personal jurisdiction.
3. The petition failed to state a claim for a writ of prohibition because, even presuming the complaint's allegations true, Shekina could prove no set of facts entitling her to the writ.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a claim for a writ of prohibition based on the alleged invalidity of the underlying domestic-relations custody order and indictment.
2. Whether alleged defects in the indictment deprived the common pleas court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
3. Whether an alleged lack of personal jurisdiction could support a writ of prohibition.
4. Whether the prohibition petition should be dismissed under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).

Disposition

dismissed