IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STA'I'E OF OHIO ex rei., . Case No: 2013-1734 MEGAN SHANAN-BECK Relator, V. JUDGE TRAC'IE, M. HU'V I'EA2., Respondent. RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OI'POSI't'ION TO RELATOR'S MOTION TO DISMISS Judge T racie1d1:. Hunter Pro Se Respondent Representing Respondent in her Official Capacity Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division 800 Broadway, 12th Floor Cinci»1ati, Ohio 45202 (513) 946-9212 Fax (513) 513-9216 I'Hunter(cx ji7.vcourt.hamilton-co.orL, Jennifer L. Branch (0038893) Counsel for Judge Tracie M. Hunter in Her Individual Capacity Only G^'[2F-iARDS`I'E1N & BRANC}I Co. LPA 432 Walnut Street, Suite400 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 621-9100 Fax: (513) 345-5543 Email: jbranchc gbiirnl.conz r ^ ..- ._• -l, f.45^ / tf i % rat 1- ^r f^j v+, ^q .,__...:^... • olAef j MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION This appeal arose as a result of the appellate court granting Relator's Complaint for a Writ of Procedendo. Respondent, The Honorable Tracie M. 1=1-unter, was not defended in the proceedings below. As a result, no defense was raised to Relator's Complaint. Respondent took it upon herself to file pro se a notice of appeal in the case. Respondent is representing herself prcr se in her official capacity. LTnder Ohio Revised Code § 309.09, the Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office (the "Prosecutor") was initially responsible to provide Respondent a legal defense. Due to conflicts, the Prosecutor withdrew as counsel from the instant case. Revised Code § 305.14 provides for additional or substitute counsel to be appointed by a county court of com.nion pleas. Two private attorneys were appointed by the I-larnilton County Court of Common Pleas to represent Respondent in various procedendo cases including the instant case. However, these appointed counsel did not file an answer or otherre,sponsive pleadilig in this case. Thtis, the Court of Appeals ruled without benefit of knowing Respondent's defense and legal arguments. Respondent appealed because the writ was issued in error. Relator has now moved to dismiss theiiIstant appeal on the groundsthat Respondent has already issued a decision in accordance with the First District's order grantin.g procedendo. Respoi-ident complied with the eotirt of appeal's order despite Respondenl's belief thedecision,s were in error because Respondent believed that not complying could lead to a charge of contempt. Respondent's compliance does not moot the appeal because this Court can still issue effective relief by guidizlg the parties and the Hamilton County Juvenile Court in applying this Court's time guidelines in this case and similar cases. More importantly, this Court's ru[ing in this appeal would clarify that the extraordinary remedy of a writ of procedeildo is inappropriate 2 when a court is overburdened by its caseload. As of the date of this filing, 18 complaints for 'All-it of procedendo have been filed against Relator Judge Tracie Hunter. A. The Hamilton County Juvenile Court is So Overburdened That a Writ of Procedendo is Not Appropriate It is public knowledge that the Hamilton County Juvenile Court has the heaviest caseload ofanv juvenile court in Ohio. According to the Ohio Supreme Court's 2012 Ohio Courts Statistical Report, the Hamilton County Juvenile Court has the second highest population per juvenile court judge: 401,000 people per judge. See Exhibit A at pp. 126-27. More concerning is that thenumber of case terzninations per judge in Hamilton County is 14,382 each. Id. I'hat is more than twice as high a number of cases terzninated per judge for any judge in ailv county in Ohio. Id. This caseload causes the Hamilton County Juvenile Court to delegate more than double the number of cases to magistrates of any other Ohio county. I(I. at 128-29. Litigants before a rnagistrate have the right to move to set aside any order by a magistrate, or object to aiiv decision by a magistrate. See Ohio R. Juv. P. 40(D). From May 25, 2012, to August 31, 2013, the Hamiltort County Juvenile Court recorded 499 objection motions filed. Of these, 296 were i.n cases assigned to Respondent Judge I-lunter, while only 203 were assigned to the other judge in the court, Judge John Williains. &e Exhibit B. Respondent is the most overburdened juvenile court judges in Ohio: she presides in a court that has twice as many cases per judge than any other court; that has twice as many cases pending before magistrates and who has pending before her 60% of all objections filed in the court since she has been on the bench. Procedeiido exists to prevent "undue delay" by ajudge. A judge overburdened by an enornious caseload cannot be said to be unduly delaying the resolution of cases. Over a fifteen month period, objections were filed 296 times in cases assigned to Respondent. Despite this burden, Respondent was able to issue decisions in seven of the cases for which petitions for procedendo were sought, causing the cases to be voluntarily dismissed by the Hainilton County Public Defenders' Uffice. I "I'his method of piecemeal resolution prejudices litigants who are the victims of systemic court delays but whose cases are passed over for decision in order to rule on a case where a complaint for a writ of procedendo has been filed. Respondent has been forced to deprioritize cases tvhich have been pending for longer periods or which have more pressing issues in order to focus on cases in which the FIamilton County Public Defender has filed procedendo petitions. Additionally, the F-lamilton County Juvenile Court records on the Stlpreme Court's "Form D" data on cases which are peilding beyond a specified time guideline after assignment to a judge. This Coitrt's Instructions for Preparation All Report Forms state that these time guidelines are "mandatoiy" and that the clock begins to run when a case is originally assigned to the reportirig judge. Notably, Juvenile Court Judge John Williams has more cases penditlg beyoy-ld time guidelines than 1Z.espondeilt, and yet no procedendo petitioz-is have been filed against him, which allows him to decide his cases in an orderly fashion. Form n- Number of Cases Pending Beyond Guidelines r-------- - ^______ llate 2013 Jud ge Hunter Jud e V6'iIliams January 9595 - I22 ------ ------ ------- February 74 71 ---E March 68 8L A iril 67 - 91 May 7 3 82 June 83 77 90 -^_ BS------- July August 79 103 September 77 --i- - 92 See State Ex, re. J.K v. 1-lainter, Case No. C1300497 (filed Aug. 12, 2013); .State ex. rel. Z.F. v. Hunter, Case No. C1300498 (filed Aug. 12. 2013); State ex: rel. Q.O. v. Hunter, Case No. C1300499 (£'iled Aug. 12, 2013); Staze ex. rel. KlczrysaBenge v. Hunter, Case No. C1300500 (filed Aug. 12, 2013); States ex. rel. Klarysa Bengev. 7funter; Case No. C1300501 (filed Aug. 12, 2013); State ex. rel. Renee Kreisav. Hunter, Case No. C1300503 (filed Aug. 12, 2013); and State ex. re,l. Susan Zillizk v. Hurtter, Case No. C 1300508 (filed Aug. 12, 2013). 4 xSee Exhibit D. Therefore, issuing the extraordinary writ of Procedendo is not appropriate in this case. A writ of Procedelido is, "issued by a eourt of superior jurisdiction ordering a lower court to proceed to judgment in a case." &e AerNills v. Cojnmon Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461, 462, 650 N.E.2d. 899 (1995). Procedendo is war.ranted where the petitioner can demonstrate "a clear legal right to require the court to proceed, a clear legal duty on the part of the court to proceed, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordiziary course of the law." C:ulgan v. Collier, 135 Ohio St. 3d 436, 437, 2013-Ohio-1762, 988 N.E.2d 564 (citing S'herrills, 72 Ohio St.3d at 462). Such relief as appropriate where "a court has reftised to enter judgnlent or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment." Id. (citing Cranciall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna, 73 Ohio St.3d 180, 184, 652N.E.2d 742 (1995)). Since the I3 ainilton Cotmty Juvenile Court has such a heavy caseload, and Respondent Judge Hunter has the largest caseload of the two sitting j udges, these facts alone explain any delay in ruling in this case, yet the Court of Appeals did not consider this evidence when it issued its decision. In total, eighteen writ cases have been filed against Respondent Judge Hunter. Seven of the uTit cases filed against Respondent were voluntarily dismissed by the petitioner because Respondent issued an order before the court of appeals granted the writ. The backlog of cases Judge Hunter inlierited and iiow presides over reflects a systemic problem at the Han-lilton County Juvenile Court. The Hamilton County Juvenile Court is among the most overburdened in the state, and Respondent the most overburdened in that court. This problem is properly addressed by the Ohio Suprenie Court Case Managelnent Section not by the Court of Appeals issuing extraordinary writs on ati ad hoc basis. As a result, this Court's Case Management Section has taken steps to address the systeniic problem and has appointed retired Hamilton County Juvenile Court Judge Thomas Lipps to preside over "all cases in which Objections to Magistrates' Decision are periding past the 120-day time guideline as of October 15, 2013 ...." See Exhibit C. This Court's order applies to cases pending before both Judge Williams and Judge Hunter. Case Management is the proper remedy, not a`vrit of procedendo. Respondent requests that the motion to dismiss be denied so Respondent can bring these facts to this Court's attention.