Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
of Mandamus Motion No. 529989 Order No. 530909
Anthony Ford, pro se.
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney,
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.
1} Relator, Anthony Ford, seeks a writ of mandamus
requiring respondent, the state of Ohio, Cuyahoga County, to
rule on a motion filed in a criminal case, State v.
Ford, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-07-503478-A The complaint
fails to comply with necessary procedural requirements and is
moot. Therefore, respondent's motion for summary judgment
is granted and the request for writ is denied.
Procedural and Factual History
2} On June 18, 2019, Ford filed a complaint for a
writ of mandamus. There, Ford alleged that he filed a motion
on March 16, 2019, in the underlying criminal
action. He further asserts that no ruling on the
motion has been entered by the trial court judge. On July 8,
2019, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment. There,
it asserted that Ford failed to comply with procedural
requirements in R.C. 2969.25 and Civ.R. 10, and that the
action was moot because the requested relief had already been
obtained. Ford responded to the motion for summary judgment,
acknowledging that a ruling on his motion had been issued,
but asserting that the ruling was not properly served on him.
Law and Analysis
Standard for Mandamus
3} A writ of mandamus is appropriate where the
relator demonstrates a clear legal right to relief, an
official has a clear legal duty to provide that relief, and
the applicant has no adequate remedy at law. State ex rel
Taxpayers for Westerville Schools v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of
Elections, 133 Ohio St.3d 153, 2012-Ohio-4267, 976
N.E.2d 890, ¶ 12. A writ of "'procedendo and
mandamus will lie when a trial court has refused to render,
or unduly delayed rendering, a judgment.'" State
ex rel Culgan v. Collier, 135 Ohio St.3d 436,
2013-Ohio-1762, 988 N.E.2d 564, ¶ 10, quoting State
ex rel Reynolds v. Basinger, 99 Ohio St.3d 303,
2003-Ohio-3631, 791 N.E.2d 459, ¶ 5.
4} The case is before this court on respondent's
motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate,
pursuant to Civ.R. 56, when this court determines that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and after
construing all evidence in favor of the nonmoving party, the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Civ.R. 56(C); Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280,
662 N.E.2d 264 (1996).
5} Ford filed his complaint without satisfying
several procedural requirements. First, R.C. 2969.25(A)
requires that any action initiated by an inmate housed in a
correctional institution against a government agency or
official be accompanied by an affidavit describing all the
civil actions or appeals from civil actions filed by the
individual within the previous five years. Ford has failed to
include such an affidavit. This is sufficient grounds to ...