On Thursday, April 30, 2026, Robert L. Hillman submitted a memorandum to the Supreme Court of Ohio, seeking a writ of procedendo against Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Karen Held Phipps. Hillman, representing himself, alleges that Judge Phipps has not fulfilled her statutory duty by failing to rule on a motion he initially filed on February 20, 2020, and again on January 20, 2026.
Hillman contends that this lack of a ruling has denied him appropriate access to the courts, which he believes is part of a civil conspiracy aimed at depriving him of his civil and constitutional rights. He argues that to be granted a writ of procedendo, he must prove he has a clear legal right to compel the court to act, demonstrate the court has a clear legal duty to act, and show that he lacks an adequate remedy through standard legal channels.
The memorandum references several Ohio Supreme Court cases to bolster Hillman’s position. These include State ex rel. Miley-v-Parrott, which states that a writ is typically used against a judge who has taken an excessive amount of time to issue a judgment, and State ex rel. Culgan-v-Collier, which emphasizes that Supreme Court Rule 40(A)(3) requires all motions to be ruled upon within 120 days of filing.
Hillman asserts that Judge Phipps’ actions directly defy established court rulings. He cites State v. Gaffin and State v. Yahya to support this assertion. He also claims that the respondent has not ruled on the merits of his constitutional claim or the credibility of his supporting affidavits.
Hillman asserts that no findings of fact or conclusions of law have been made in case numbers 13CR-6648 and 13CR-6206 by the respondent and that no final appealable order has been entered.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
