State ex rel. Chattams v. Pater

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Chattams v. Pater, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-55.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-55 THE STATE EX REL. CHATTAMS, APPELLANT, v. PATER, JUDGE, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Chattams v. Pater, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-55.] Court of appeals judgment denying injunctive relief affirmed Courts of appeals lack original jurisdiction in prohibitory injunction. (No. 2011-1317 Submitted January 3, 2012 Decided January 12, 2012.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Butler County, No. CA2010-07-183. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request of appellant, D Anthony Chattams, for immediate injunctive relief stopping the further execution of his prison term, in the context of his mandamus case against appellee, Butler County Court of Common Pleas Judge Charles Pater. Courts of appeals lack original jurisdiction in prohibitory injunction. State ex rel. Esarco v. Youngstown City Council, 116 Ohio St.3d 131, 2007-Ohio-5699, 876 N.E.2d 953, ¶ 11. Moreover, habeas corpus, and not mandamus, is the appropriate action to SUPREME COURT OF OHIO seek release from prison. State ex rel. Briscoe v. Matia, 128 Ohio St.3d 365, 2011-Ohio-760, 944 N.E.2d 677, ¶ 10. Judgment affirmed. O CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. __________________ D Anthony Chattams, pro se. _____________________ 2

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.