State ex rel. Robert L. Hillman, Relator,
Franklin County Common Pleas Judge, Mr. Jeffrey M. Brown, Respondent.
PROCEDENDO ON OBJECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
L. Hillman, pro se.
O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.
1} Relator, Robert L. Hillman, an inmate, has filed
a pro se original action requesting this court issue a writ
of procedendo ordering respondent, the Honorable Jeffrey M.
Brown, a judge of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas,
to "proceed to judgment" with respect to a
complaint and affidavit relator filed, pursuant to R.C.
2935.09 and 2935.10, accusing another common pleas judge of a
2} This court referred the matter to a magistrate of
this court pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the
Tenth District Court of Appeals. The magistrate issued the
appended decision, including findings of fact and conclusions
of law, recommending this court dismiss this action for
failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A). Relator has filed a
pro se objection to the magistrate's decision arguing he
should have been allowed to amend his pleading to comply with
3} Relator seeks a writ of procedendo with respect
to an "Affidavit of Accusation and Criminal
Complaint" he filed on November 29, 2016 in Franklin
C.P. No. 16MS-674, alleging that a common pleas judge
"deliberately committed the crimes of * * * obstructing
official business." Relator subsequently filed several
motions in case No. 16MS-674, requesting the trial court to
proceed to judgment on his affidavit and complaint. On
November 28, 2017, relator filed the instant original action
in this court.
4} In general, "[a] writ of procedendo is
appropriate when a court has either refused to render a
judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to
judgment." State ex rel. Sherrills v. Common
Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461, 462 (1995). However, "
'[a] writ of procedendo will not issue to compel the
performance of a duty that has already been performed.'
" State ex rel. Graham v. Niemeyer, 106 Ohio
St.3d 466, 2005-Ohio-5522, ¶ 4, quoting State ex
rel. Bortoli v. Dinkelacker, 105 Ohio St.3d 133,
2005-Ohio-779, ¶ 3. An appellate court "can take
judicial notice that the requested act has been
performed." State ex rel. Stanley v.
D'Apolito, 7th Dist. No. 12 MA 218, 2013-Ohio-428,
¶ 8, citing State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel, 84
Ohio St.3d 252, 253 (1998).
5} In the instant action, we take judicial notice of
the fact that, subsequent to the filing of this action, the
trial court issued a decision and entry in case No. 16MS-674
on February 9, 2018, ruling on appellant's
"Affidavit of Accusation and Criminal Complaint."
Because respondent has ruled on the affidavit and complaint
in case No. 16MS-674, the petition for writ of procedendo
before this court is rendered moot. Similarly, relator's
objection to the magistrate's decision is rendered moot
and we do not address it.
6} Based on the foregoing, the decision of the
magistrate is vacated, relator's objection is moot, and
relator's request for a writ of procedendo is dismissed.
DORRIAN and ...