On Thursday, May 14, 2026, Cody Huffman filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of Ohio following a decision by the Wayne County Court of Appeals, Ninth Appellate District. The case, designated No. 26AP0003, originated as an original action in mandamus. Huffman is appealing the judgment entered on May 11, 2026.

The legal action began when Huffman petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel Judge Michael W. Rickett to release vehicle registration blocks imposed on him and to certify their release. Judge Rickett responded with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, while Huffman moved for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals ultimately dismissed the case.

The court’s decision was based on several factors. First, the court noted that one of Huffman’s cases, 2014 CR-B 001383, was moot because the vehicle registration block had already been released on February 20, 2026.
Second, the court found the amended complaint fatally defective because Huffman did not name any party who could grant the relief he sought in seven of the municipal court cases over which Judge Rickett did not preside. These cases include 2015 CR-B 000245, 2018 CR-B 000667, 2018 CR-B 000988, 2018 CR-B 001455, 2018 CR-B 001460, TRD-11-12-10838, and CRB-11-11-01633.

Regarding the remaining three municipal court cases, the court determined that Huffman did not demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief requested. The court referenced House Bill 29 and R.C. 4510.22, which Huffman argued mandated the removal of vehicle registration blocks.

However, the court found that Section 5 of House Bill 29 did not apply retroactively to the removal of vehicle registration blocks imposed under R.C. 1901.44 for criminal misdemeanors. The court noted that Huffman’s convictions in the three remaining cases (2021 CR-B 000912, 2021 CR-B 001471, and 2023 CR-B 000137) were for criminal misdemeanors, not motor vehicle offenses.

The Court of Appeals concluded that Huffman could not prove the existence of a clear legal right to the relief he sought, leading to the dismissal of the case. The court also denied all outstanding motions as moot and taxed the costs of the action to Huffman.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.