[Cite as Reynolds v. State, 2013-Ohio-3883.]
COURT OF APPEALS
KNOX COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
SCOTT REYNOLDS JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Petitioner Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs-
Case No. 13CA21
STATE OF OHIO
Respondent OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Procedendo
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 9, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Peitioner For Respondent
SCOTT L. REYONLDS, PRO SE JOSEPH D. SAKS
Masison Correctional Institution Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
#A668943 Knox County Prosecutor's Office
Box 740 - 1851 St. Rt. 56 117 East High St., Ste #234
London, Ohio 43140 Mount Vernon, Ohio 43050
Knox County, Case No. 13CA21 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Petitioner Scott L. Reynolds has filed a “Writ of Procedendo.” Petitioner
requests the trial court be ordered to rule on a motion filed by Petitioner on March 13,
2013. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss arguing the relief sought has already
been obtained and arguing Petition has failed to meet the procedural requirements for a
writ of mandamus.
{¶2} Initially, we find Petitioner has failed to name a proper respondent.
Petitioner captioned the instant complaint as “State of Ohio v. Scott L. Reynolds.” The
State of Ohio is incorrectly listed as the Plaintiff. The State of Ohio is not the Plaintiff.
Further, in a procedendo action, the State of Ohio is not a proper respondent.
{¶3} To be entitled to a writ of procedendo, “a relator must establish 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 law.” Miley,
supra, at 65, citing State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas
(1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 461, 462. The Supreme Court has noted, “The writ of procedendo
is merely an order from a court of superior jurisdiction to one of inferior jurisdiction to
proceed to judgment. It does not in any case attempt to control the inferior court as to
what that judgment should be.” State ex rel. Davey v. Owen, 133 Ohio St. 96, *106, 12
N.E.2d 144, * *149 (1937).
{¶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, Case No. 13CA21 3
{¶5} Respondent ruled on Petitioner’s March 25, 2013 motion on July 23, 2013.
{¶6} Because Respondent has issued a ruling on Petitioner’s motion, the
request for a writ of procedendo has become moot.
{¶7} For these reasons, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Farmer, J. and
Delaney, J. concur
___________________________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
___________________________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
___________________________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
Knox County, Case No. 13CA21 4
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR KNOX COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
SCOTT REYNOLDS :
:
Petitioner :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Respondent : Case No. 13CA21
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, Respondent’s Motion to
Dismiss is granted. Costs to Petitioner.
___________________________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
___________________________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
___________________________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY