LISBON — Terry Brown, a convicted killer deemed a vexatious litigator last month and barred from filing further documents or cases in multiple courts without permission, filed an appeal Wednesday.

The newest case was filed with the Seventh District Court of Appeals in Youngstown to challenge the vexatious litigator designation and the court filing ban outlined in a judgment entry filed May 7 in Columbiana County Common Pleas Court.

The decision issued by retired Judge Edward Emmett O’Farrell granted a motion for summary judgment sought by Columbiana County Prosecutor Vito Abruzzino, who had filed a lawsuit against Brown last fall seeking he be designated a vexatious litigator.

The civil action referred to what Abruzzino considered to be numerous unwarranted mandamus actions filed by Brown against officials involved in his murder case.

Brown remains imprisoned serving a sentence of 25 years to life at the Belmont Correctional Institution in St. Clairsville for the murder and dismemberment of Scottie Johnson in 2017.

On Oct. 25, 2017, Brown pleaded guilty to aggravated murder with a firearms specification, aggravated robbery, abuse of a corpse and tampering with evidence. His appeals related to his conviction were all dismissed, but he continued to file numerous mandamus cases, attacking assistant prosecutors and investigators who worked on his murder case.

Besides all the post conviction appeals, he filed numerous petitions and motions related to the murder case. He also filed accusations against the detective assigned to the murder case and sought criminal charges against him, along with mandamus actions against two prosecutors, a visiting judge, the Clerk of Courts, the sheriff, Abruzzino, the public defenders, county jail, and sheriff’s office.

In his ruling, O’Farrell found that summary judgment could be granted because no genuine issue of any material fact remained to be litigated and based on the evidence, reasonable minds could only come to one conclusion concerning the claims brought by Abruzzino against Brown and that conclusion was unfavorable to Brown.

He ruled that the civil actions were not warranted under existing law and “served merely to harass or maliciously injure the other parties to the civil actions and/or appeals; and were filed and/or pursued solely for delay.” He also ruled that any future filings required Brown to get permission from the court in question to proceed.

In his appeal documents, Brown said he was appealing the judgment denying his motion for summary judgment to dismiss the case and the declaration that he was a vexatious litigator.

For possible assignments of error, he wrote that the trial court abused its discretion not dismissing the complaint, due to judicial bias, and erred by allowing the plaintiff to use counsel’s filings to determine the outcome, by not dismissing the complaint for the plaintiff not meeting the burden and by not reviewing his filings and motion to determine judgment.

Brown is serving as his own attorney.