[Cite as State ex rel. King-Malone v. Rintala, 2026-Ohio-3010.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO EX REL. PARIS KING- C.A. No. 31870 MALONE,
Relator
v.
HON. PAMELA A. RINTALA, et al. ORIGINAL ACTION IN
MANDAMUS AND
Respondents PROCEDENDO
Dated: August 5, 2026
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Paris King-Malone filed a complaint seeking a writ of prohibition to order the
respondents, Judge Pamela Rintala, Magistrate Richard Stahl, and the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas (“the Respondents”) to refrain from exercising jurisdiction over Summit County
Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. DR-2020-09-2389 (“the Summit
County case”). She also sought a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to refrain from
proceeding in the case. According to an “exhibit” filed by Ms. King-Malone, however, Case No.
DR-2020-09-2389 is no longer pending. On July 15, 2026, therefore, this Court ordered the parties
to file responses addressing whether this action is moot. The parties have responded.
{¶2} As an initial matter, to the extent the counts in the complaint name the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Ms. King-Malone cannot obtain
relief. The Ohio Supreme Court has held repeatedly that courts are not sui juris. See, e.g., Page
2
v. Geauga Cty. Prob. & Juvenile Court, 2023-Ohio-2491, ¶ 3; State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty.
Bd. of Commrs., 2021-Ohio-2374, ¶ 26. As such, Ms. King-Malone’s claims against the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division must be dismissed. Id.
{¶3} Ms. King-Malone’s remaining claims must be dismissed because they are moot.
When an actual controversy no longer exists before this Court, we must dismiss a case as moot.
State ex rel. Grendell v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2022-Ohio-2833, ¶ 9. A case is moot when,
without any fault of the respondent, an event occurs which renders it impossible for this Court to
grant any relief to the relator. State ex rel. Wood v. Rocky River, 2021-Ohio-3313, ¶ 13.
{¶4} Ms. King-Malone’s petition appears to assert that she is entitled to a writ of
prohibition restraining the Respondents from exercising jurisdiction because the Summit County
Case arose from a transfer from Cuyahoga County, and the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas did not have jurisdiction in the first instance. For a writ of prohibition to issue, a relator
“must prove that a lower tribunal is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power without
authority and that there is no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” State ex rel.
Feltner v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2020-Ohio-3080, ¶ 6. It is well established that a writ
of prohibition issues to prevent future acts rather than to correct past actions. Id. To the extent
that Ms. King-Malone argues that a writ of prohibition should issue to correct past action by a
court that patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction, her arguments pertain to actions taken
by Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas rather than Respondents. Because the Summit
County Case has been terminated, it is impossible for this Court to grant the relief that Ms. KingMalone requests, and her prohibition action is moot.
{¶5} Ms. King-Malone’s petition also appears to maintain that the Respondents have a
clear legal duty to take certain actions within the context of Case No. DR-2020-09-2389. To
3
establish that she is entitled to a writ of mandamus, Ms. King-Malone must demonstrate that she
has a clear right to the requested relief, that the respondents have a clear legal duty to provide that
relief, and that she does not have an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel.
Manley v. Walsh, 2014-Ohio-4563, ¶ 18. Mandamus is an appropriate remedy when a court has
refused to render a judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment. See, e.g., State
ex rel. CNG Financial Corp. v. Nadel, 2006-Ohio-5344, ¶ 20. It is well-settled, however, that
mandamus will not “compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.” State ex
rel. Grove v. Nadel, 84 Ohio St.3d 252, 253. Because all pending motions have been addressed
and the case has been closed, there is no duty on the part of Respondents that remains to be
performed, and this Court cannot grant the relief that Ms. King-Malone requests.
{¶6} The petition is dismissed. Costs are taxed to Ms. King-Malone. The clerk of courts
is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default notice of this judgment and its date of
entry upon the journal. See Civ.R. 58(B).
JILL FLAGG LANZINGER
FOR THE COURT
SUTTON, J.
STEVENSON, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
PARIS KING-MALONE, Pro Se, Relator.
ELLIOT KOLKOVICH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JENNIFER M. PIATT, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondents.