[Cite as State ex rel. Lisboa v. Fuerst,

.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97856

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., JOSE LISBOA, JR. RELATOR

vs.

JUDGE NANCY A. FUERST RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT: COMPLAINT DISMISSED

Writ of Prohibition and Mandamus Order No. 451671

RELEASE DATE: February 1, 2012 FOR RELATOR

Jose C. Lisboa, Jr. C/O Moyer Paralegal Services 245 Portage Trail, Unit #2 Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44223

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT

William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Justice Center, 9th Fl. 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.:

{¶ 1} Jose Lisboa, Jr., has filed a compliant for an original action through

which he seeks a writ of prohibition and/or a writ of mandamus. Lisboa, through

his request for prohibition, is attempting to prevent any future action with regard to

the indictment that is currently pending within State v. Lisboa, Cuyahoga Cty.

Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-522757. In addition, Lisboa requests a writ

of mandamus to dismiss the pending indictment based upon a claim of lack of

speedy trial. Sua sponte, we dismiss Lisboa’s complaint for an original action base

upon the failure to state any claim upon which relief can be granted. {¶ 2} Prohibition is not available to challenge a defective indictment.

Lisboa possesses adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law through a motion

to dismiss the indictment, and if convicted as based upon a defective indictment, by

appeal. State ex rel. Bandarapalli v. Gallagher,

,

,

, State ex rel. Parker v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of

Common Pleas,

,

(1980). In addition, the claim

that Lisboa has been denied the right to a speedy trial is not cognizable in an

extraordinary action. State ex rel. Barr v. Pittman,

,

,

; State ex rel. Jackim v. Ambrose,

,

,

. Thus, Lisboa has failed to establish any

claim that he is entitled to a writ of prohibition or a writ of mandamus. State ex

rel. Peeples v. Anderson, 73 Ohio St.3d559,

,

.

{¶ 3} Finally, we declare that Lisboa is a vexatious litigator. Pursuant to

Loc.App.R. 23(A), an original action shall be considered frivolous if it is not

reasonably grounded in fact or warranted by existing law. Loc.App.R. 23(B)

further provides that a party that habitually, persistently and without reasonable

cause engages in frivolous conduct, may be declared a vexatious litigator subject to

filing restrictions. We find that this original action is not reasonably grounded in

fact and is not warranted by existing law. It must also be noted that Lisboa has

continually taxed the limited resources of this court through the filing of over 22 appeals and 7 original actions over the past 7 years.

{¶ 4} Thus, we find Lisboa to be a vexatious litigator under Loc.App.R. 23.

Accordingly, Lisboa is prohibited from instituting any future legal proceedings in

the Eighth District Court of Appeals without first obtaining leave and is further

prohibited from filing any actions in the Eighth District Court of Appeals without

the filing fee and security for costs required by Loc.App.R. 3(A). Any request to

file an appeal or original action shall be submitted to the clerk of this court for the

court’s review.

{¶ 5} Accordingly, we sua sponte dismiss Lisboa’s complaint for a writ of

prohibition and/or mandamus. It is further ordered that Lisboa be declared a

vexatious litigator pursuant to Loc.App.R. 23. Costs to Lisboa. A copy of this

judgment shall be served upon all parties as required by Civ.R. 58(B).

Complaint dismissed.

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., AND KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR