On Thursday, July 31, 2025, the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed an affidavit of disqualification filed by Kostantinos Pamboukis against Judge Elinore Marsh Stormer of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division. This marked the fourth consecutive affidavit submitted by Pamboukis.

Pamboukis’s latest affidavit, which was not met with a response from Judge Stormer, claimed that previous rulings regarding his disqualification requests had not addressed the merits of his allegations. He indicated that he believed a technical issue related to notarization had prevented proper consideration of his claims. In his submission, Pamboukis asserted that new evidence warranted a review and that he was resubmitting his affidavit with the correct notarization.

The court noted that, under Ohio law, specifically R.C. 2101.39, a party can only file an affidavit of disqualification if there is an active matter pending before the judge in question. The Supreme Court emphasized that it could only consider disqualification requests if such matters were indeed ongoing. The affidavit was dismissed on the grounds that Pamboukis failed to demonstrate that any case was currently pending before Judge Stormer.

This dismissal follows a series of previous affidavits filed by Pamboukis, with the first submitted on April 9, 2025, which was denied on April 28. The second affidavit was filed on May 5 and denied three days later. The third affidavit, submitted on June 2, was also dismissed shortly thereafter due to a lack of evidence showing that a case was pending before the judge.

The court highlighted that Pamboukis was informed of the necessity to provide proof of an ongoing case when the third affidavit was dismissed. In that ruling, the court noted that a final judgment had already been entered in the underlying probate case. Pamboukis’s subsequent assertion that Judge Stormer had dismissed his motions to vacate this judgment did not satisfy the requirement for an active proceeding.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that any motions not explicitly ruled upon by the judge are considered denied following the entry of a final judgment. Pamboukis was reminded that to successfully invoke the chief justice’s authority to disqualify a judge, he must provide affirmative evidence of pending matters.

As a result, the court concluded that Pamboukis’s affidavit did not meet the necessary legal criteria, leading to its dismissal.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.