Opinion
Case No. 11CA24
02-10-2012
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. MATTHEW J. HOFFMAN Relator v. JUDGE OTHO EYSTER Respondent
APPEARANCES: For Relator MATTHEW J. HOFFMAN #A645571 Toledo Correctional Institution For Respondent NO APPEARANCE
JUDGES:
Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
William B. Hoffman, J.
Julie A. , J.
OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus and Procedendo
JUDGMENT: Denied
APPEARANCES:
For Relator
MATTHEW J. HOFFMAN
#A645571
Toledo Correctional Institution
For Respondent
NO APPEARANCE Edwards , J.
{¶1} Relator, Matthew J. Hoffman, has filed a "Petition for Writ of Mandamus and of Procedendo" requesting a writ be issued which would require Respondent to rule on two outstanding motions filed with the trial court.
{¶2} For a writ of mandamus to issue, the relator must have a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, the respondents must be under a clear legal duty to perform the requested act, and relator must have no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State, ex rel. Berger, v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 6 OBR 50, 451 N.E.2d 225.
{¶3} A writ of procedendo has "the limited purpose of [requiring] a lower court to go forward 'when a court has either refused to render a judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment.' State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 64, 65, 671 N.E.2d 24." State ex rel. Lemons v. Kontos 2009 WL 4756269, 2 (Ohio App. 11 Dist.).
{¶4} The Supreme Court has held, "Neither procedendo nor mandamus will compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed. State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 252, 253, 703 N.E.2d 304, 305." State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 318, 725 N.E.2d 663, 668. Knox County App. Case No. 11CA24 3
{¶5} Subsequent to the filing of the instant petition, Respondent ruled on the two outstanding motions filed by Relator in the trial court. For this reason, we find the petition has become moot.
{¶6} For this reason, the request for the issuance of a writ of mandamus and/or procedendo is denied.
By: Edwards, J.
Delaney, P.J. and
Hoffman, J. concur
____
JUDGES
JAE/ads0113
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. MATTHEW J. HOFFMAN Relator
v.
JUDGE OTHO EYSTER Respondent
JUDGMENT ENTRY
CASE NO. 11CA24
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, the Complaint is denied. Costs waived.
____
JUDGES