On Tuesday, December 2, 2025, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the Fifth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of a petition filed by Christopher P. Conomy, who sought writs of mandamus and procedendo against Delaware Municipal Court Judge Kyle Rohrer, Delaware City Prosecutor Amelia Bean-DeFlumer, Delaware City Attorney Natalia Harris, and the City of Delaware. The legal action stemmed from two misdemeanor cases against Conomy that were ultimately dismissed.
Conomy’s initial legal challenge arose after Judge Rohrer found him incompetent to stand trial in a case involving aggravated menacing, leading to the dismissal of charges on September 25, 2023. Conomy claimed he was unaware his counsel had requested the competency evaluation. Subsequently, Bean-DeFlumer moved to dismiss a second case against Conomy based on his continued incompetence, which Judge Rohrer granted. Conomy then filed a motion to amend the dismissal entry and sought sanctions, which Judge Rohrer did not rule on.
Conomy’s petition to the Fifth District Court of Appeals requested writs compelling specific actions, including the removal of allegedly defamatory statements from court records, amendments to dismissal entries, and the withdrawal of allegedly false statements by city officials. He also sought damages for emotional distress and other losses. The Fifth District dismissed the petition, leading to Conomy’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, stating that a writ of mandamus would not be issued to control judicial discretion. The court agreed with the Fifth District’s determination that Conomy had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, namely the possibility of pursuing a defamation action regarding statements made by the prosecutor.
The court also addressed Conomy’s claim for a writ of procedendo, which would have compelled Judge Rohrer to rule on the motion to amend the dismissal entry. The Supreme Court agreed with the Fifth District’s decision that Judge Rohrer lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion after dismissing the case.
During the appeal process, Conomy filed motions to disqualify the appellees’ counsel, refer the case to a special master, strike affidavits, and issue a show-cause order for contempt. The Supreme Court denied all of these motions. The court found Conomy’s claim of conflict of interest involving the Office of Risk Management and the Ohio Judges’ Professional Liability Self-Insurance Program to be without merit.
The court also determined that Conomy’s motion to strike affidavits was unfounded, as the affidavits were submitted to rebut a new allegation unrelated to the merits of the case. Finally, the court dismissed Conomy’s motion for a show-cause order, finding it meritless.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
