[Cite as State ex rel. Hoffman v. Eyster, 2012-Ohio-597.]
COURT OF APPEALS
KNOX COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
: JUDGES:
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. : Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
MATTHEW J. HOFFMAN : William B. Hoffman, J.
: Julie A. Edwards, J.
Relator :
: Case No. 11CA24
-vs- :
:
: OPINION
JUDGE OTHO EYSTER
Respondent
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus and Procedendo
JUDGMENT: Denied
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 10, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Relator For Respondent
MATTHEW J. HOFFMAN NO APPEARANCE
#A645571
Toledo Correctional Institution
2001 East Central Avenue
Toledo, Ohio 43608
[Cite as State ex rel. Hoffman v. Eyster, 2012-Ohio-597.]
Edwards, J.
{¶1} Relator, Matthew J. Hoffman, has filed a “Petition for Writ of Mandamus
and of Procedendo” requesting a writ be issued which would require Respondent to rule
on two outstanding motions filed with the trial court.
{¶2} For a writ of mandamus to issue, the relator must have a clear legal right
to the relief prayed for, the respondents 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 (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 6 OBR 50,
451 N.E.2d 225.
{¶3} A writ of procedendo has “the limited purpose of [requiring] a lower court
to go forward ‘when a court has either refused to render a judgment or has
unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment.’ State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott (1996), 77
Ohio St.3d 64, 65, 671 N.E.2d 24.” State ex rel. Lemons v. Kontos 2009 WL 4756269,
2 (Ohio App. 11 Dist.).
{¶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 App. Case No. 11CA24 3
{¶5} Subsequent to the filing of the instant petition, Respondent ruled on the
two outstanding motions filed by Relator in the trial court. For this reason, we find the
petition has become moot.
{¶6} For this reason, the request for the issuance of a writ of mandamus and/or
procedendo is denied.
By: Edwards, J.
Delaney, P.J. and
Hoffman, J. concur
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
JUDGES
JAE/ads0113
[Cite as State ex rel. Hoffman v. Eyster, 2012-Ohio-597.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR KNOX COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. :
MATTHEW J. HOFFMAN :
:
Relator :
:
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
JUDGE OTHO EYSTER :
:
Respondent : CASE NO. 11CA24
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, the
Complaint is denied. Costs waived.
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
JUDGES
State ex rel. Hoffman v. Eyster
Combined Opinion