[Cite as State ex rel. Barnett v. Fleegle, 2017-Ohio-269.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. JUDGES:
WILLIAM BARNETT Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P. J.
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.
Relator Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
-vs-
Case No. CT2016-0020
MUSKINGUM COUNTY COMMON
PLEAS COURT, JUDGE FLEEGLE
Respondent OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Petition for Writ of Mandamus
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 24, 2017
APPEARANCES:
For Relator For Respondent
WILLIAM J. BARNETT D. MICHAEL HADDOX
HOCKING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
16759 Snake Hollow Road GERALD V. ANDERSON II
P.O. Box 59 ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR
Nelsonville, Ohio 45764-0059 27 North Fifth Street, P.O. Box 189
Zanesville, Ohio 43702-0189
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2016-0020 2
Wise, J.
{¶1} Relator, William Barnett, has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus
requesting this Court to order Respondent to rule on four motions filed in the trial court on
October 23, 2015 and November 18, 2015. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss
indicating he issued a ruling on the motions on May 26, 2016.
{¶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 (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 6 OBR 50,
451 N.E.2d 225.
{¶3} However, the Supreme Court has held 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 (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 318, 725 N.E.2d 663, 668.
{¶4} Because Respondent has issued a ruling on Relator’s motions, the request
for a writ of mandamus has become moot. For this reason, the Petition for Writ of
Mandamus is dismissed.
By: Wise, J.
Farmer, P. J., and
Gwin, J., concur.
JWW/d 0106