[Cite as Queer v. Henson, 2013-Ohio-4668.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
SAM QUEER : JUDGES:
:
Relator :
: Hon., Patricia A. Delaney P.J.
: Hon., W. Scott Gwin J
-vs- : Hon., William B. Hoffman J.
:
JUDGE JAMES D. HENSON : CASE NO. 13CA67
:
Respondent :
: OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Petition for Writ of Procedendo
JUDGMENT: DISMISSED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 30, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Relator – Pro se: For Respondent:
Sam Queer #632-894 Jill M. Cochran
P.O. Box 57 Asst. Richland County Prosecutor
Marion, OH 43301 38 South Park Street, 2nd Floor
Mansfield, OH 44902
Richland County, Case No. 13CA67 1
Delaney, J.,
{¶1} Petitioner, Sam Queer, has filed a “Complaint/Petition for Writ of
Procedendo” asking this Court to issue an order requiring Respondent, Judge James
Henson, to rule on a “Motion to Dismiss Counsel” filed on April 25, 2013.
{¶2} The Supreme Court has explained, “For a writ of procedendo, [a
petitioner] must show a clear legal right to require the court to proceed, a clear legal
duty on the part of the court to proceed, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common
Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461, 462, 650 N.E.2d 899 (1995). A writ of procedendo is proper
when a court has refused to enter judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to
judgment. State ex rel. Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna, 73 Ohio St.3d 180,
184, 652 N.E.2d 742 (1995).” State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier (2013), 135 Ohio St.3d
436, 437, 988 N.E.2d 564, 565.
{¶3} The Culgan court went on to advise, “Sup.R. 40(A)(3) imposes on trial
courts a duty to rule on motions within 120 days. Although the Rules of
Superintendence do not provide litigants with a right to enforce Sup.R. 40, the rule does
guide this court in determining whether a trial court has unduly delayed ruling on a
motion for purposes of ruling on a request for an extraordinary writ. A court that takes
more than 120 days to rule on a motion risks unduly delaying the case and, as here,
risks our issuing writs of mandamus and/or procedendo to compel a ruling.” Id. at 438.
Richland County, Case No. 13CA67 2
Delaney, J.,
{¶4} In this case, the motion was not pending for more than 120 days prior to
the filing of this complaint. For this reason, we find procedendo is not appropriate under
the facts presented here.
{¶5} Further, the Supreme Court has held that a judge’s performance of the
requested act makes the complaint in procedendo moot. State ex rel. Hazel v. Bender,
129 Ohio St.3d 496, 496, 954 N.E.2d 114, 115 (Ohio,2011).
{¶6} Subsequent to the filing of the instant complaint, Respondent ruled on the
motion to dismiss counsel and has appointed new counsel for Relator. For this reason,
we dismiss the instant petition as moot.
{¶7} Costs waived.
By: Delaney, P.J.
Gwin, J. and
Hoffman, J. concur
______________________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
______________________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
______________________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
SAM QUEER :
: CASE NO. 13CA67
Relator :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
JUDGE JAMES D. HENSON :
:
Respondent :
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion,
Petitioner’s Complaint for Writ of Procedendo is hereby dismissed. Costs
waived.
____________________________
HON. PATRICIA. DELANEY
____________________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
____________________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN