STATE EX REL ROBERTS v. HATHEWAY (2021)

Supreme Court of Ohio.2021-11-23No. No. 2021-0771

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Roberts's petition for writs of mandamus and procedendo.

Mallon Roberts sought writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel Judge Alison Hatheway to rule on his jurisdictional motion filed in June 2020. The court of appeals dismissed his petition in May 2021, eight days after Judge Hatheway had already issued an entry dismissing the underlying motion on res judicata grounds. Roberts appealed that dismissal to the state supreme court.

The supreme court upheld the lower court's decision, finding that both requested remedies were inappropriate. The procedendo claim became moot once the trial judge actually ruled on the motion, since a procedendo writ addresses only a court's refusal or unreasonable delay in rendering judgment. Similarly, a mandamus writ cannot compel an act that has already been performed. The court noted that Roberts had an adequate alternative remedy—he could appeal the trial court's ruling on the merits of the jurisdictional motion through the ordinary appellate process.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a writ of procedendo remains appropriate after the underlying court has issued a ruling
Whether a writ of mandamus can compel an act the court has already performed
Whether extraordinary remedies are proper when adequate remedies exist through ordinary appeal

Procedural posture

Roberts appealed the First District Court of Appeals' dismissal of his petition for writs of mandamus and procedendo challenging a trial judge's refusal to rule on a jurisdictional motion.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

{¶ 1} Appellant, Mallon Roberts, appeals the judgment of the First District Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus and/or a writ of procedendo ordering appellee, Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Alison Hatheway, to rule on his jurisdictional motion. We affirm.

{¶ 2} In June 2020, Roberts filed in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas a “Motion Challenging Subject Matter Jurisdiction of Trial Judge Pursuant to Sup.R. 4, Sup.R. 36, Hamilton County Local Rule 7(E), O.R.C. 2701.031.”

{¶ 3} In April 2021, Roberts filed a petition in the court of appeals seeking a writ of mandamus and/or a writ of procedendo to compel Judge Hatheway to rule on his motion. Eight days after Roberts filed his petition with the court of appeals, Judge Hatheway issued an entry dismissing Robertss motion on res judicata grounds.

{¶ 4} In May 2021, the court of appeals dismissed Robertss petition, determining that the procedendo claim was moot in light of Judge Hatheways entry and that a writ of mandamus was not the proper remedy to redress Robertss alleged injury. Roberts then filed this appeal.

{¶ 5} “A writ of procedendo is appropriate when a court has either refused to render a judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment.” State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530, 532, 705 N.E.2d 1227 (1999). An action in procedendo becomes moot when the court performs the duty requested. See State ex rel. Morgan v. Fais, 146 Ohio St.3d 428, 2016-Ohio-1564, 57 N.E.3d 1140, ¶ 4. Because the trial court has ruled on Robertss motion, the court of appeals properly dismissed the procedendo claim as moot.

{¶ 6} Robertss request for a writ of mandamus is controlled by similar logic. Even assuming that a writ of mandamus could provide relief beyond that afforded by a writ of procedendo, a “writ of mandamus will not issue to compel an act already performed.” State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 279, 658 N.E.2d 723 (1996). Because the trial court has performed the act requested by Roberts, mandamus cannot lie.

{¶ 7} To the extent Roberts attempts to use his petition to argue the merits of his underlying jurisdictional motion, he has an adequate remedy by way of appeal to address any alleged error in the trial courts ruling on that motion. See State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger, 99 Ohio St.3d 303, 2003-Ohio-3631, 791 N.E.2d 459, ¶ 8 (“neither a writ of procedendo nor a writ of mandamus will issue if an adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law”).

{¶ 8} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Per Curiam.

OConnor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., not participating.