State ex rel. Brown v. Henson

[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