Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
STATE EX REL. CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL LITWINOWICZ, RELATOR
CUYAHOGA COUNTY ET, AL BOARD OF ELECTIONS RESPONDENT
of Procedendo Order No. 517021
RELATOR Christopher Michael Litwinowicz, pro se.
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.
Relator, Christopher Michael Litwinowicz, filed a complaint
for writ of procedendo naming the Cuyahoga County Board of
Elections ("BOE") as respondent. The writ seeks to
have a Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court judge rule on
objections to a magistrate's decision. The complaint
also seeks to require the BOE to allow him to be a write-in
candidate in the clerk of courts election in Euclid, Ohio.
Finally, the complaint seeks to vacate the trial court's
determination that relator is a vexatious litigator. Because
relator has failed to comply with procedural requirements,
this court dismisses the complaint for writ of procedendo.
Factual and Procedural History
In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-17-888903, relator instituted an
action on November 13, 2017, against the BOE seeking to be a
write-in candidate in the upcoming election for the clerk of
courts for the city of Euclid. The BOE answered and filed a
counterclaim to have the court declare relator a vexatious
litigator. The counterclaim documented a series of cases
instituted by relator against the BOE and others, which it
alleged were frivolous. On February 6, 2018, the trial court,
sua sponte, dismissed relator's complaint for failing to
present any cognizable claim for relief. The court also set a
dispositive motion schedule for the vexatious-litigator
matter. The BOE filed a motion for summary judgment, which
was unopposed. On April 9, 2018, the trial court declared
relator a vexatious litigator. The next day, notice was sent
to the clerk of the Ohio Supreme Court,  and notice was
sent to relator the day after that. Relator then instituted
this action on April 18, 2018.
Law and Analysis
Relator has failed to seek leave to institute an original
action in this court. Therefore, the complaint for writ of
procedendo must be dismissed.
R.C. 2323.52 requires one deemed to be a vexatious litigator
to seek leave of court before instituting an action in a
court of appeals. R.C. 2323.52(D)(3). In fact, this court
shall not entertain a filing where leave is not sought.
Baumgartner v. Duffy, 121 Ohio St.3d 356,
2009-Ohio-1218, 904 N.E.2d 534 (holding that a court of
appeals should have dismissed an original action filed
without leave); R.C. 2323.52(I).
Based on the failure to seek leave, this court dismisses the
complaint for writ of procedendo.
EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and SEAN C. ...