Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Paul S. Henderson, et al. v. State of Ohio

October 28, 2011

PAUL S. HENDERSON, ET AL. RELATORS
v.
STATE OF OHIO RESPONDENT



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mary Eileen Kilbane, A.J.:

Cite as Henderson v. State,

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT:

COMPLAINT DISMISSED

Writ of Mandamus

Motion No. 446380

Order No. 448501

{¶1} Relator, Paul S. Henderson, is the defendant in State v. Henderson, Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-520709 and CR-530899. Henderson avers in the body of his complaint that the prosecuting attorney is "removing money" from Henderson's prison account. Complaint, ¶3. He requests that this court issue a writ of mandamus to prevent the prosecuting attorney from removing funds from Henderson's prison account and to return to him funds that have already been removed.

{¶2} Henderson also makes the same claim and requests the same relief on behalf of Patricia L. Casey, whom he avers is in custody at the Ohio Reformatory for Women in Marysville. Casey has not signed the complaint or any of the other filings purportedly made on her behalf.

{¶3} In Traywick v. Fuerst, Cuyahoga App. No. 96357, 2011-Ohio-947, Benjamin J. Wherry signed the complaint in an original action in this court on behalf of the relator, Taheim Traywick. "Wherry's attempt to commence this action on Traywick's behalf constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. Wherry concedes that he is not admitted to practice law and he has not provided any other basis for exemption from the requirements of R.C. Chapter 4705 and Gov.Bar.R XII. As a consequence, we dismiss this action." Id. ¶2.

{¶4} In this action, Henderson does not provide this court with any basis for concluding that he is admitted to the practice of law. As a consequence, we must dismiss this action with respect to the claim asserted on behalf of Casey.

{¶5} The complaint is also defective. Henderson has titled this action as "Henderson v. State." As noted above, however, in the body of the complaint he requests that this court grant relief against the prosecuting attorney. Henderson has not, therefore, identified the respondent in the caption. "Without properly identifying the respondent it is impossible to determine whether or not there are rights and duties enforceable in mandamus. This court has held that this deficiency alone also warrants dismissal." State ex rel. Sherrills v. State (Aug. 3, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 78261, at 1 (citations deleted), affirmed by State ex rel. Sherrills v. State, 91 Ohio St.3d 133, 2001-Ohio-299, 742 N.E.2d 651. ("As the court of appeals held, Sherrills's complaint is defective because he failed to name the proper respondents and did not include their addresses." ¶1, citations deleted).

{¶6} Likewise, in this action, Henderson has not included the address of respondent in the caption as required by Civ.R. 10(A). Additionally, the action is not on relation of the state as required for an action in mandamus by R.C. 2731.04, which may also be a ground for dismissal. Clarke v. McFaul, Cuyahoga App. No. 89447, 2007-Ohio-2520, at ¶5.

{ΒΆ7} Although Henderson failed to name the proper respondent in the caption, we will dispose of this action on the merits of his claim that he is entitled to relief ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.