State ex rel. Cunningham v. Pittman ( 2023 )

[Cite as State ex rel. Cunningham v. Pittman, 2023-Ohio-4094.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PORTAGE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO ex rel. CASE NO. 2023-P-0060
PAUL CUNNINGHAM, et al.,
Relators, Original Action for Writ of Prohibition
- vs -
THE HONORABLE LAURIE J. PITTMAN,
Respondent.
PER CURIAM
OPINION
Decided: November 13, 2023
Judgment: Petition dismissed
Jeff R. Laybourne, Donald J. Malarcik, and Daniel D. Eisenbrei, Malarcik, Pierce, Munyer
& Will, 121 South Main Street, Suite 520, Akron, OH 44308 (For Relators).
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Theresa M. Scahill, Assistant
Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Respondent).
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} On August 10, 2023, relators, Paul, Nancy, and Erik Cunningham,
commenced this original action by filing a “Complaint for Writ of Prohibition” against
Respondent, the Honorable Laurie J. Pittman.
{¶2} The complaint alleged that the trial court scheduled a jury trial in Erik
Cunningham’s criminal case in the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, case number
2019CR00022. Relators argued that respondent was without jurisdiction to schedule trial
because Paul and Nancy had appealed to this Court after the respondent denied their
motion to intervene in the criminal case.
{¶3} At the time of relators’ filing, Paul and Nancy Cunningham’s appeal was still
pending. However, on September 18, 2023, this Court issued an opinion dismissing Paul
and Nancy Cunningham’s appeal in State v. Cunningham, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2021-
P-0049, 2023-Ohio-3300. Over dissent, that opinion held that Paul and Nancy
Cunninham’s cell phone data “remains under seal and is thus protected from publication.
No one, outside of those who have already viewed the data pursuant to the search
warrant, is permitted to know what is on the Cunninghams’ phones. Those few who have
reviewed the data cannot disclose the information to anyone—not even to the
prosecutor—without an additional court order. This change in circumstances creates an
issue of ripeness.” Id. at ¶ 14. Thus, the majority held that Paul and Nancy Cunningham’s
motion to intervene was not ripe because the State’s access to the data was a contingent
event that may never occur. Id. at ¶ 16.
{¶4} On September 22, 2023, we ordered relators to show cause as to why their
complaint for writ of prohibition was not moot due to the release of our opinion. Relators
filed their responses to this Court’s show cause order and also filed a motion to stay all
trial court proceedings. Relators argue that Paul and Nancy’s cell phone data will be
unsealed upon the resolution of the underlying criminal case. Respondent opposed these
motions and relators replied.
{¶5} On September 27, 2023, Paul and Nancy Cunningham filed an Application
for Reconsideration of this Court’s September 18 opinion dismissing their appeal.
2
Case No. 2023-P-0060
{¶6} On October 26, 2023, this Court denied Paul and Nancy Cunningham’s
Application for Reconsideration, again over dissent.
Law and Analysis
{¶7} Sua sponte dismissal of a complaint for writ of prohibition is warranted if the
complaint is frivolous or the relator obviously cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the
complaint. State ex rel. Jones v. Garfield Hts. Mun. Court, 77 Ohio St.3d 447, 448, 674
N.E.2d 1381 (1997).
{¶8} “A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary judicial writ issuing out of a court of
superior jurisdiction and directed to an inferior tribunal commanding it to cease abusing
or usurping judicial functions.” State ex rel. Jones v. Paschke, 11th Dist. Geauga No.
2021-G-0013, 2021-Ohio-2889, ¶ 11, citing State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio
St.3d 70, 73, 701 N.E.2d 1002 (1998). “The purpose of a writ of prohibition is to restrain
inferior courts and tribunals from exceeding their jurisdiction.” Id. A writ of prohibition is
an extraordinary remedy and therefore to be granted with caution and restraint and only
in cases of necessity arising from the inadequacy of other remedies. Id.{¶9} To be entitled to a writ of prohibition, a relator must establish that (1) the
respondent is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of that
power is unauthorized by law, and (3) denying the writ would result in injury for which no
other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Bell v. Pfeiffer,
131 Ohio St.3d 114, 2012-Ohio-54, 961 N.E.2d 181, ¶ 18.
{¶10} When relators filed this writ of prohibition, this Court had not yet released
its opinion dismissing Paul and Nancy Cunningham’s appeal as unripe. However, that
3
Case No. 2023-P-0060
opinion has now been released and reconsideration denied. The trial court’s scheduling
of a trial date does not alter the clear holding in that case that the State’s access to the
data was a contingent event that may never occur.
{¶11} Further, relators’ argument that Paul and Nancy’s cell phone data will be
released upon the conclusion of Erik’s criminal case is unavailing. The trial has not yet
started and there is no indication that respondent has exercised or is about to exercise
judicial power to release the cell phone data.
{¶12} Accordingly, relators’ “Complaint for Writ of Prohibition” is dismissed. Any
pending motions are hereby overruled as moot.
JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J., MARY JANE TRAPP, J., EUGENE A. LUCCI, J., concur.
4
Case No. 2023-P-0060