On Wednesday, August 20, 2025, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth District Court of Appeals’ decision to dismiss three original-action complaints filed by Dante’ D. Gordon, who sought extraordinary writs of prohibition, procedendo, and mandamus against retired Judge Jane Bond, Judge Susan Baker Ross, and the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. The court also denied a motion to declare Gordon a vexatious litigator.
Gordon, currently incarcerated at Belmont Correctional Institution in St. Clairsville, filed the complaints in the Ninth District, asserting 13 identical claims across the three actions. He sought to have his 1998 guilty plea, conviction, and sentence for murder with a firearm specification declared void, claiming the Summit County Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Gordon, who pleaded guilty in a case presided over by Judge Bond, later had his postconviction motions assigned to Judge Ross. He supported his claims with 83 exhibits and filed discovery requests, including interrogatories and requests for admission.
The Ninth District consolidated the complaints and granted a motion to dismiss filed by the appellees under Civil Rule 12(B)(6), concluding that Gordon failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Gordon appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, raising four propositions of law. The appellees, in their brief, included a motion to declare Gordon a vexatious litigator under Supreme Court Rule of Practice 4.03(B).
In a per curiam opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the Ninth District’s dismissal de novo, affirming that Gordon’s complaints did not meet the requirements for the requested writs. The court found that Gordon’s claims, including allegations of an unsigned indictment, a conviction for a nonexistent offense, and a prior dismissal in municipal court, lacked merit.
The court noted that habeas corpus, not mandamus or prohibition, is the appropriate action for seeking release from prison, and defects in an indictment do not deprive a court of jurisdiction. The court also determined that Gordon’s procedendo claim failed, as he provided no evidence that Judge Ross refused or delayed rendering a judgment.
Regarding Gordon’s specific claims, the court found that the exhibits, including the transcript of his guilty-plea hearing, confirmed he pleaded guilty to murder, not to “wrongfully taking the life” of the victim, as he alleged. The municipal court docket entry Gordon provided showed his case was bound over to the grand jury, not dismissed. The court also rejected claims of conspiracy and false evidence, finding no factual basis for these allegations.
The Ohio Supreme Court further addressed the appellees’ motion to declare Gordon a vexatious litigator. The court reviewed Gordon’s filing history, noting he had initiated four original actions in the court since 2020. However, the appellees did not demonstrate that Gordon habitually filed frivolous cases, leading the court to deny the motion.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
