State ex rel. Pryor v. Werren
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Pryor v. Werren, 2017-Ohio-7668.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. NC LaFONSE PRYOR Relator JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, J. -vsJUDGE CURT WERREN, CANTON MUNICIPAL COURT, et al. Respondents Case No. 2017 CA 00029 OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Quo Warranto JUDGMENT: Dismissed DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 18, 2017 APPEARANCES: For Relator For Respondents NC LaFONSE PRYOR PRO SE STARK COUNTY JAIL 4500 Atlantic Boulevard, NE Canton, Ohio 44705 JOHN D. FERRERO PROSECUTING ATTORNEY RONALD MARK CALDWELL ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR 110 Central Plaza South, Suite 510 Canton, Ohio 44702 Stark County, Case No. 2017 CA 00029 2 Wise, John, J. {¶1} Petitioner, NC LaFonse Pryor, has filed a Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto against Respondents Judges Curt Werren and Taryn L. Heath. Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. {¶2} Petitioner generally argues Respondents lack jurisdiction over his case due to an excessive bond and violation of various constitutional rights. {¶3} For a writ of quo warranto to issue, “a relator must establish (1) that the office is being unlawfully held and exercised by respondent, and (2) that relator is entitled to the office.” State ex rel. Paluf v. Feneli (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 138, 141, 630 N.E.2d 708. {¶4} The Ohio Supreme Court has held, “‘[A]n action in quo warranto may be brought by an individual as a private citizen only when he personally is claiming title to a public office.’ ” State ex rel. Coyne v. Todia (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 232, 238, 543 N.E.2d 1271, quoting State ex rel. Annable v. Stokes (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 32, 32-33, 53 O.O.2d 18, 262 N.E.2d 863. {¶5} “[D]ismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is appropriate if the complaint is frivolous or the claimant obviously cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint. State ex rel. Bruggeman v. Ingraham (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 230, 231, 718 N.E.2d 1285, 1287.” State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 316, 725 N.E.2d 663, 667. Stark County, Case No. 2017 CA 00029 {¶6} 3 Petitioner does not aver in his Petition that he is entitled to the offices held by Respondents. For this reason, we find the petition lacks merit and dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. By: Wise, John, J. Gwin, P. J., and Wise, Earle, Jr., J., concur. JWW/d 0830
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
