Opinion
23 MO 0020
08-14-2024
STATE EX REL. CARL E. WHITACRE, Relator, v. NORTH EAST MUD SERVICES COMPANY ET AL., Respondents.
Carl E. Whitacre, Pro se Relator North East Mud Services Company Services, Respondent Mitchell L. Ring, Sr., Respondent
Writ of Mandamus
Carl E. Whitacre, Pro se Relator
North East Mud Services Company Services, Respondent
Mitchell L. Ring, Sr., Respondent
BEFORE: Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Mark A. Hanni, Judges.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Relator Carl E. Whitacre has filed a handwritten pro se complaint in mandamus. In the title of the action, Whitacre identifies four respondents: (1) North East Mud Services Company; (2) Mitchell L. Ring Sr.; (3) Amanda Ring-Laury, PhD, ABPP; and (4) "John Doe", Proctologist. At the outset of his complaint, Whitacre states that the relief he is seeking is for the State of Ohio to prosecute the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for harboring terrorists. Whitacre goes on to allege criminal activity on the part of Mitchell L. Ring Sr. and his family. Other than Mitchell L. Ring Sr., Whitacre makes absolutely no reference to the three other named respondents in his complaint.
{¶2} Whitacre's complaint is defective on its face and must be dismissed. The Rules of Civil Procedure are generally applicable in original actions for extraordinary writs. State ex rel. Youngstown Professional Firefighters IAFF Local 312 v. Youngstown, 2021 -Ohio-539, ¶ 34 (7th Dist.) (mandamus), citing State ex rel. Sautter v. Grey, 2008-Ohio-1444, ¶ 11; R.C. 2731.09. Civ.R. 10(A) provides:
(A) Caption; Names of Parties. Every pleading shall contain a caption setting forth the name of the court, the title of the action, the case number, and a designation as in Rule 7(A). In the complaint the title of the action shall include the names and addresses of all the parties * * * (Emphasis added.)
{¶3} Whitacre's complaint contains only one incomplete address attributed to respondents collectively, appearing as "Ring, Ring, & Ring, Nicklaus Lane, Waynesburg, PA 15370". The complaint makes no other reference to "Ring, Ring, & Ring". Moreover, the address provided is incomplete as it does not include the address number.
{¶4} It is well settled that the failure to properly caption a mandamus action with a party's address is sufficient grounds for denying the writ. State ex rel. Sherrills v. State, 91 Ohio St.3d 133, (2001); State v. Elder, 2014-Ohio-871 (11th Dist.); Scott v. Sargeant, 2009-Ohio-1745 (6th Dist.). Thus, the failure to comply with Civ.R. 10(A) prevents this Court from granting the request for a writ of mandamus.
{¶5} Additionally, Whitacre's complaint fails to state a claim for relief in mandamus. "Mandamus is a writ, issued in the name of the state to an inferior tribunal, a corporation, board, or person, commanding the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station." R.C. 2731.01. Thus, a writ of mandamus will issue to compel the performance of a public duty by a public official. The State ex rel. Omni Energy Group, LLC. v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Oil & Gas Resources Mgt, 2020-Ohio-5581. Whitacre's complaint does not identify any of the named respondents as public officials or a public office nor does he identify any public duty owed by them to him.
{¶6} Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED sua sponte that Whitacre's complaint is hereby DISMISSED. Writ DENIED. Any and all pending motions and unresolved filings are hereby dismissed as moot.
{¶7} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Civ.R. 58, that the Clerk of the Monroe County Court of Appeals shall immediately serve notice of this judgment upon all parties, including unrepresented or self-represented parties, and make a note of it on the docket. Costs assessed to Relator Carl Whitacre.