State ex rel. Williamson v. Toledo
Docket L-26-00101
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Ohio
- Court
- Ohio Court of Appeals
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Other
- Disposition
- Denied
- Judge
- Gene A. Zmuda
- Citation
- 2026-Ohio-1633
- Docket
- L-26-00101
Original action (writ of prohibition) filed in the court of appeals seeking to bar further action in a pending Toledo Municipal Court case
Summary
The Ohio Court of Appeals dismissed Michael-Rashaad Williamson’s original action seeking a writ of prohibition against the City of Toledo, its police department, the Toledo Municipal Court prosecutor, and an IRS commissioner. The court explained that a writ of prohibition may only be issued against persons exercising judicial or quasi-judicial power, and prosecutors and police do not qualify. Because the named respondents do not exercise the required judicial authority and the complaint sought dismissal and expungement of a pending criminal case, the relator cannot prevail and the writ was denied as a matter of law.
Issues Decided
- Whether a writ of prohibition may be issued against the City of Toledo, its police department, the municipal court prosecutor, or an IRS commissioner for actions relating to a pending criminal case
- Whether the named respondents exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power sufficient to be subject to a writ of prohibition
Court's Reasoning
A writ of prohibition can only be issued to prevent someone who is exercising judicial or quasi-judicial power from acting. The court found the relator's allegations sought dismissal and expungement of a criminal case but did not show that any named respondent had judicial authority to grant those remedies. Because prosecutors, police, and the IRS commissioner do not exercise the requisite judicial power, the relator cannot obtain a writ and the complaint is legally deficient.
Authorities Cited
- State ex rel. McNamara2025-Ohio-979
- State ex rel. Gray v. Leis62 Ohio St.2d 102 (1980)
- State ex rel. Jones v. Garfield Hts. Mun. Ct.77 Ohio St.3d 447 (1997)
Parties
- Relator
- Michael-Rashaad Williamson
- Respondent
- City of Toledo
- Respondent
- Toledo Police Department
- Respondent
- Prosecutor of the Toledo Municipal Court
- Respondent
- Incumbent Commissioner of Office for IRS
- Judge
- Gene A. Zmuda
- Judge
- Myron C. Duhart
- Judge
- Charles E. Sulek
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-05-05
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult a criminal defense attorney
An attorney can advise on direct motions in the municipal court (e.g., dismissal or expungement requests) and evaluate whether an appeal or other relief is appropriate.
- 2
Proceed with municipal-court remedies
File the appropriate motions or petitions in the Toledo Municipal Court where the criminal case is pending rather than seeking a writ against non-judicial actors.
- 3
Consider appellate review
If there are grounds to challenge this denial, consult counsel immediately about filing a further appeal or extraordinary writ in the Ohio Supreme Court within applicable deadlines.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court denied the requested writ of prohibition and dismissed the action because the named respondents do not exercise the judicial power necessary to be subject to such a writ.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The relator, Michael-Rashaad Williamson, is affected because his attempt to bar further action in the municipal-court case via a writ failed; the named respondents are unaffected by any prohibition.
- What happens next in the underlying criminal case?
- This decision does not dismiss or resolve the underlying criminal case; proceedings in the municipal court can continue unless the municipal court itself or another appropriate court orders otherwise.
- Can this decision be appealed?
- Relator may seek further review, but the opinion does not describe any additional procedural steps taken here; consulting counsel quickly is advisable to evaluate appellate options and deadlines.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
[Cite as State ex rel. Williamson v. Toledo, 2026-Ohio-1633.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio, ex. rel Michael-Rashaad Court of Appeals No. {48}L-26-00101
Williamson
Relator
v.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
City of Toledo, et al.
Decided: May 5, 2026
Respondents
*****
ZMUDA, J.
{¶ 1} Relator, Michael Williamson, proceeding pro se, filed this original
action seeking a writ of prohibition against respondents the City of Toledo and its
police department, the “Prosecutor of the Lucas County Municipal Court,”1 and
the Incumbent Commissioner of Office for IRS. He requests an order from this
court prohibiting respondents from taking further action, other than dismissal, in a
1
Presumably, relator intended to reference the Toledo Municipal Court as there is
no “Lucas County Municipal Court.” This misnomer does not impact our
resolution of this action as correction of this error would not alter our analysis.
case currently pending before the Toledo Municipal Court. Because respondents
are not subject to a writ of prohibition, we dismiss this action.
{¶ 2} Initially, we note that sua sponte dismissal of a complaint for a writ of
prohibition is generally inappropriate. State ex rel. Jones v. Garfield Hts. Mun.
Ct., 77 Ohio St.3d 447, 447-448 (1997), citing State ex rel. Cossett v. Executive
State Governors Federalism Summit, 74 Ohio St.3d 1416 (1995). However,
dismissal is warranted when the complaint is frivolous or the claimant cannot
prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint. Id.
{¶ 3} “To be entitled to a writ of prohibition, [relators must first] establish
that [respondents] are about to exercise or have exercised judicial power[.]” State
ex rel. McNamara, 2025-Ohio-979, ¶ 10. A writ of prohibition cannot be issued
against individuals that do not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power. Id. at ¶
11, citing State ex rel. Gray v. Leis, 62 Ohio St.2d 102, 103 (1980) (holding that a
writ of prohibition cannot be issued against a prosecutor as they do not exercise
judicial power). Relator’s complaint offers no facts that suggest the named
respondents are exercising any judicial or quasi-judicial power. Instead, his
complaint alleges that the pending criminal case against him should be dismissed
and that his record should be expunged. None of the named respondents can
exercise judicial authority over those requests. As a result, we cannot issue a writ
of prohibition against them as a matter of law. Id. Relator, then, cannot succeed
on the merits of his complaint and we dismiss this action. Jones at 447-448.
{¶ 4} Writ denied. Costs assessed to relator.
2.
To the clerk: Manner of Service
The clerk is directed to serve upon all parties, within three days, a copy of
this decision in a manner prescribed by Civ.R. 5(B).
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Gene A. Zmuda, J.
JUDGE
Myron C. Duhart, J.
JUDGE
Charles E. Sulek, J.
CONCUR. JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
3.