Opinion
No. 87-463
Decided February 24, 1988.
Mandamus — Relief properly denied, when.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County.
Relator-appellant, Paul L. Freshour, who is currently incarcerated, filed an action in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County on August 22, 1986. Subsequently, on October 28, 1986, appellant filed an application for a peremptory writ of mandamus in the same action requesting the court to:
"* * * issue the prempatory [ sic] writ of mandamus, and to compel by the aforementioned writ that the respondent Dwite Racliff [ sic] Sheriff be made to prove his allegations and to stop immediately commenting to any and all, (jail immates included) both visual and auditory in reference to State vs Freshour * * *.
"The plaintiff compells [ sic] by mandamus [ sic] upon the Court of Common Pleas for Pickaway County, Ohio to enter a judgment order for the plaintiff against the respondent Sheriff Dwite [ sic] Radcliff in the Civil action now pending in that Court."
Appellant asserts that he filed a libel action against Sheriff Radcliff in the Court of Common Pleas of Pickaway County. However, the record does not contain a copy of the complaint in that action.
Appellant alleges that the respondent-appellee, Sheriff Dwight Radcliff, has constantly commented to the public that appellant, while incarcerated, is responsible for a number of obscene and threatening letters being sent to various residents of Pickaway County. Appellant asserts that he is in fact not responsible for the letters. He apparently seeks some order from a court directing the sheriff to cease informing the public that the sheriff believes appellant is responsible for these letters.
On February 17, 1987, the court of appeals, upon appellee's motion to dismiss, stated that appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Accordingly, the court of appeals dismissed the case.
The cause is now before this court on an appeal as of right.
Paul L. Freshour, pro se. William H. Harsha, prosecuting attorney, for appellee.
In order for the extraordinary writ of mandamus to issue, a court must find that the relator has a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, that the respondent is under a clear legal duty to perform the requested act, and that relator has no plain and adequate remedy at law. State, ex rel. Westchester, v. Bacon (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 42, 15 O.O. 3d 53, 399 N.E.2d 81, paragraph one of the syllabus. Clearly, appellant could not and cannot sustain this burden.
First, there is no evidence in the record that appellant has filed any civil action in libel in the Court of Common Pleas of Pickaway County. Second, a writ of mandamus cannot issue ordering a person to cease commenting about a criminal case which has been fully adjudicated. Finally, a writ of mandamus cannot issue ordering the trial court to enter a judgment for appellant in a civil suit allegedly pending before that court.
Appellant has failed to demonstrate that he has a clear legal right to the relief prayed for and further has failed to demonstrate that appellee is under a clear legal duty to perform the requested acts. Therefore, dismissal of this action by the court of appeals was appropriate and the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT and H. BROWN, JJ., concur.