On Wednesday, September 3, 2025, Stephen Johnson filed an emergency complaint for a writ of prohibition in the Ohio Supreme Court against Administrative Judge Deanna O’Donnell, Clerk of Courts Martin E. Vittardi, and Linndale City Prosecutor Dean Eric Depiero. Johnson is seeking to halt a trial in Parma Municipal Court. In the alternative, Johnson requests a writ of mandamus to compel Judge O’Donnell to fulfill her legal duties.
Johnson claims he has exhausted all ordinary avenues for relief, including filing pre-trial motions, affidavits, and a motion for reconsideration, all of which were allegedly denied or stricken. He also attempted to disqualify Judge O’Donnell by filing an Affidavit of Disqualification, but the Clerk of the Supreme Court rejected it on procedural grounds. The Clerk cited Rule 21.01(D)(5) and R.C. 2701.03(B), noting the affidavit was received six days before the trial date, rendering it untimely, and that it was not properly notarized.
Johnson argues that the denial of disqualification based on procedural grounds has left him without an adequate remedy at law and that the imminent trial poses an irreparable harm to his constitutional rights.
In Claim I, Johnson asserts that Judge O’Donnell lacks jurisdiction to proceed with the trial because constitutional motions remain unruled upon and disqualification has been procedurally barred. He further claims Judge O’Donnell exceeded her authority by striking and denying motions supported by unrebutted affidavits, refusing to take judicial notice of adjudicated facts, denying discovery enforcement, and setting a trial date without addressing suppression issues and objections to scheduling. Johnson contends that proceeding under these conditions would violate his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article I of the Ohio Constitution. He requests the Supreme Court to prohibit Judge O’Donnell from conducting the trial until constitutional motions are lawfully ruled upon and due process is secured.
In Claim II, presented as an alternative, Johnson seeks a writ of mandamus, arguing that Judge O’Donnell has a legal duty to properly rule on pending suppression and discovery motions, consider unrebutted affidavits as true unless rebutted, and take judicial notice as required by Evid.R. 201(C). He alleges that Judge O’Donnell failed to perform these duties by striking filings without consideration and that an appeal after conviction would not be an adequate remedy for the constitutional harms inflicted. Therefore, he requests the Court to compel Judge O’Donnell to fulfill her duties before the trial proceeds.
Johnson is requesting the Ohio Supreme Court to issue an emergency writ of prohibition restraining Judge O’Donnell from conducting the trial. Alternatively, he seeks a writ of mandamus compelling Judge O’Donnell to lawfully rule on pending motions, accept affidavits, and take judicial notice. He also seeks any further relief the Court deems proper.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
