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.

State ex. rel. Ford v. State

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

August 20, 2019

STATE EX REL., ANTHONY FORD, Relator,
v.
STATE OF OHIO, Respondent.

          Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 529989 Order No. 530909

         JUDGMENT WRIT DENIED

          Anthony Ford, pro se.

          Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.

          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.

         I. 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.[1] 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.

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. 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).

         B. Procedural Requirements

         {¶ 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 ...


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.