On Tuesday, March 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the dismissal of a petition for a writ of prohibition filed by inmate Charles L. Watkins. The court ruled against Watkins, who sought to challenge the actions of Judge Joseph V. McNamara of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas and Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Lauren Carpenter.
Watkins, an inmate at the North Central Correctional Complex, had contended that the lower court made errors in handling his motion for a final, appealable order concerning a criminal case dating back to 1985. Specifically, he claimed that Carpenter submitted a fraudulent exhibit opposing his motion, which Judge McNamara relied upon in his decision to deny Watkins’s request.
The case originated when Watkins filed his petition in January 2024. He alleged that the exhibit provided by Carpenter was not only fraudulent but also inadmissible, asserting that it misrepresented information from a different court. Despite these claims, the Sixth District Court of Appeals dismissed Watkins’s petition on March 22, 2024, stating that even if the journal entry were false, it did not warrant issuing a writ of prohibition.
The appellate court concluded that a writ could not be issued against Carpenter since she is not a judicial officer and therefore does not possess judicial authority. Furthermore, the court determined that Judge McNamara had subject-matter jurisdiction over Watkins’s motion and that Watkins had adequate legal remedies available through an ordinary appeal.
After the dismissal, Watkins appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio. He also filed a motion for judicial notice, requesting the court to recognize certain facts regarding the evidence submitted by Carpenter. The Supreme Court denied this motion, citing that the facts he presented were subject to reasonable dispute and not part of the record from the lower court.
The Supreme Court emphasized that a writ of prohibition can only be issued if the appellees are exercising judicial power, if that power is unauthorized, and if there is no adequate remedy in the ordinary legal process. The court found that neither condition was met in Watkins’s case. It stated that Carpenter, as an assistant prosecuting attorney, could not be subjected to a writ of prohibition, and Judge McNamara had the jurisdiction necessary to address Watkins’s motion.
Watkins’s appeal was further complicated by the fact that he did not argue that Judge McNamara lacked jurisdiction over his case. Instead, he claimed the judge exceeded his authority by allegedly conspiring with Carpenter to commit fraud. However, the Supreme Court ruled that an error in how jurisdiction is exercised does not qualify for extraordinary relief through prohibition.
In its decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the Sixth District’s dismissal of Watkins’s petition, stating that the lower court’s conclusion was correct. The court maintained that Watkins had an adequate remedy through the appeal process from Judge McNamara’s judgment, which made the issuance of a writ unnecessary.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
