Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Raises Legal Concerns on Jail Plan

This article was published through an exclusive content-sharing agreement with neo-trans.blog.

Despite an agreement hailed a week ago by Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne and presiding county Common Pleas Court Judge Michael Shaughnessy to move forward on the new, $889 million jail complex, county Prosecutor Michael O’Malley said, in effect — “not so fast.”

O’Malley said as much in a letter sent on April 20 to State Auditor Keith Faber requesting that a special audit and review of spending already under way for new jail, called the Central Services Complex, in suburban Garfield Heights, be conducted by the state auditor’s Public Integrity Unit. This follows a cease-and-desist letter to Ronayne in March to stop spending on the jail.

O’Malley said it was “unlawful” for Ronayne and the county council to approve the initial contracts, called “Early Release Work” for the jail and for spending to continue. Those contracts, including the acquisition of 72 acres of land and site preparation work by Gilbane Inc., so far total $69 million. Another $25 million in Early Release Work was authorized.

Under Ohio law, O’Malley said a majority vote is required among the clerk of the court of common pleas, the county sheriff and probate judge, and one person to be appointed by the judge of the court of common pleas. A jail project with an estimated total cost greater than $75,000 cannot start unless approved without those votes, he said.

“The project proponents have failed to heed my demand based on my personal observations that the construction work is proceeding unabated as recently as April 16, 2026,” O’Malley concluded.

“Contrary to his claims, no public funds have been expended for the jail project since the date of his (March) letter,” said a written statement from Ronayne’s office.

Ronayne added that he, Shaughnessy, Senior Probate Court Judge Anthony Russo, County Clerk of Courts Nailah Byrd, and County Sheriff Harold Pretel are scheduled to hold a meeting this week to approve plans for the jail and courthouse pursuant to state law.

“Despite his personal involvement in these discussions, his full awareness of our intent to follow his interpretation of the legal requirements for the project, and his lack of any evidence that there has been an expenditure of public dollars for the project since his March letter, Prosecutor O’Malley is once again seeking to prevent the jail project from moving forward by requesting a state audit,” Ronayne said.

“Every other stakeholder in this process has been willing to work in good faith for the benefit of those in the county’s custody and for the taxpayers,” Ronayne said. “Prosecutor O’Malley has shown his only purpose is to delay, disrupt, and cause chaos. Now his irrational attempts to weaponize the law for his own political agenda could potentially cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.”

On April 14, Ronayne and Shaughnessy issued a joint statement saying that the two men “have reached a tentative agreement on a path forward for capital improvements to county courthouse facilities.”

They said the agreement allows the county to invest $150 million over the next six years to repair and modernize the Justice Center and provide a source of funding for the ongoing repair and maintenance to the Court’s facilities.

“In conjunction, this agreement allows legislation regarding the county’s new Corrections Center to move forward, resulting in a new, modern jail to improve conditions for both staff and those in our care,” the joint statement by Ronayne and Shaughnessy added.

A Justice Center Steering Committee comprised of multiple city and county stakeholders was regularly meeting in the late 2010s and early 2020s but the last meeting was held in 2022. No updates to the committee’s Web page were made since.

But in 2019, the steering committee recommended the disposing of the entire Justice Center site with the courthouse moved to a new or renovated structure elsewhere downtown and a new jail campus built on a 15-20 acre site, probably outside of downtown.

County judges were not satisfied with the design concepts for a proposed new courthouse, especially as it relates to the sizes and amenities of the judges’ courtrooms, chambers, views, offices, private bathrooms, elevators, parking and other perks.

Law firms wanted the courts to stay close to their offices. And downtown parking lot operators wanted all of the facilities, including the jail and its nearly 1,000 employees, to stay in the central business district.

For more updates about Cleveland, sign up for our Cleveland Magazine Daily newsletter, delivered to your inbox six times a week.

Cleveland Magazine is also available in print, featuring immersive stories, helpful guides and beautiful photography and design.