[Cite as State ex rel. Brown v. Henson, 2014-Ohio-1043.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
STATE OF OHIO EX REL. : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
JUHAN BROWN : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
Relator :
:
-vs- : Case No. 13CA108
:
JUDGE JAMES D. HENSON :
: OPINION
Respondent
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 13, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For Relator For Respondent
JUHAN BROWN PRO SE JILL M. COCHRAN
Box 8107 Assistant Richland County Prosecutor
Mansfield, OH 44901 38 South Park Street, 2nd Floor
Mansfield, OH 44902
[Cite as State ex rel. Brown v. Henson, 2014-Ohio-1043.]
Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} Relator, Juhan Brown, has filed a Complaint for Writ of Mandamus
requesting Respondent be ordered to rule on a motion filed in the trial court on July 15,
2013. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss arguing Relator does not have a clear
legal right to the ruling in the time frame suggested by Relator.
{¶2} For a writ of mandamus to issue, the relator must have a clear legal right
to the relief prayed for, the respondent 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, 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 451 N.E.2d 225
(1983).
{¶3} The Supreme Court has held procedendo and mandamus will not issue
where the requested relief has been obtained, “Neither procedendo nor mandamus will
compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.” State ex rel. Kreps
v. Christiansen, 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 318, 725 N.E.2d 663, 668 (2000).
Richland County, Case No. 13CA108 3
{¶4} On December 27, 2013, the trial court provided the requested ruling which
has been appealed to this Court and assigned Richland County Case Number 14CA3.
For this reason, the instant petition is dismissed as moot.
By Gwin, P.J.,
Hoffman, J., and
Farmer, J., concur