STATE EX REL CARLTON v. HEEKIN (2021)

Supreme Court of Ohio.2021-08-19No. No. 2021-0080

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court denied Carlton's complaint for a writ of mandamus as moot because the judge had already performed the requested act by directing the clerk to serve the judgment entry.

Carlton filed a mandamus complaint in January 2021 requesting that a judge compel the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts to serve him with a judgment entry denying his motion to vacate costs and fines. Carlton alleged that although the judge issued the judgment in June 2020, the judge never directed the clerk to mail it to him, preventing him from receiving notice and appealing. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the judge submitted evidence showing that in May 2021—after the mandamus complaint was filed—he had directed the clerk to serve Carlton with the judgment entry. Because the judge had already performed the exact action Carlton sought through the mandamus petition, the case became moot.

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

Key issues

Whether a writ of mandamus can issue to compel an act already performed
Mootness doctrine in mandamus proceedings
Judicial duty to direct service of judgment entries

Procedural posture

Carlton sought a writ of mandamus in the Ohio Supreme Court against a Common Pleas judge, and the court previously denied the judge's motion to dismiss and granted an alternative writ in April 2021.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

{¶ 1} In January 2021, relator, Damian Carlton, filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel respondent, Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Thomas Heekin, to direct the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts to serve Carlton with a judgment entry. In April 2021, we denied Judge Heekins motion to dismiss the mandamus complaint and granted an alternative writ. 162 Ohio St.3d 1426, 2021-Ohio-1202, 166 N.E.3d 25.

{¶ 2} Carlton seeks a writ from this court ordering Judge Heekin to direct the clerk to serve him with the judgment entry denying his motion to vacate costs and fines. Carlton alleges that Judge Heekin rendered the judgment in June 2020 but did not direct the clerk to mail a copy of the judgment entry to him. Carlton contends that he needs a copy of the judgment entry so that he will have notice of the denial and can appeal the entry.

{¶ 3} Judge Heekin has submitted evidence of an entry dated May 3, 2021, in which he directed the clerk to serve Carlton with the June 30, 2020 judgment entry overruling Carltons motion to vacate costs and fines. Because Judge Heekin has performed the act that Carlton has requested through his mandamus complaint, this case is now moot. See State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 279, 658 N.E.2d 723 (1996) (“A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel an act already performed”).

{¶ 4} We therefore deny as moot Carltons complaint for a writ of mandamus.

Writ denied.

Per Curiam.

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

Fischer, J., not participating.