2011 Ohio 5679
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Henderson, a relator, seeks a writ of mandamus against the state prosecuting attorney to stop the removal of funds from his prison account and to recover funds already taken.
- Case of Patricia L. Casey is involved, but she did not sign the complaint or filings on her behalf.
- Wherry’s unauthorized signing of a related complaint in Traywick v. Fuerst is cited as grounds for dismissal of similar representation in this action.
- The complaint names the wrong respondent and lacks proper captioning and respondent address per Civ.R. 10(A); this raises dismissal for misidentification.
- The action is not properly in mandamus on relation of the state; the court notes the procedural defects and then addresses the merits of Henderson’s claim.
- The court ultimately dismisses Henderson’s mandamus claim and denies relators’ summary-judgment motion, with costs assessed to relators.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper respondent and caption in mandamus action | Henderson seeks relief against the prosecuting attorney | Response to mandamus requires proper respondent and caption | Defective; dismissal warranted on caption/ respondent issues |
| Relation and standing to sue in mandamus | Henderson seeks relief against state actor in mandamus | Action must be on relation of the state and properly framed | Not properly framed; dismissal possible on relation grounds |
| Legal basis for relief given Collins precedent | Henderson relies on Collins to stop cost collection | Collins forecloses relief here; no clear legal right/duty | No mandamus relief; Collins controls |
| Indigency and costs considerations | Henderson is indigent and seeks waivers/relief | Costs follow the dismissal; no remedy to stop costs absent ruling | Not favorable to relief; costs assessed to relators |
| Authority to collect court costs from prison accounts | Prosecutor lacks authority to remove funds | Collection may be authorized under sentencing and statute | No mandamus relief; Collins-based reasoning applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Traywick v. Fuerst, 2011-Ohio-947 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 2011) (unauthorized practice of law; dismissal for lack of representation by non-attorney)
- Collins v. State, 2011-Ohio-4964 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 2011) (relator not entitled to mandamus relief; costs collection context; warrants appeal remedy)
- State v. White, 2004-Ohio-5989 (Ohio , 2004) (authorized clerk to collect court costs; indigent defendant sentencing considerations)
- Holloman, 2011-Ohio-4236 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 2011) (waiver of costs; remedy by appeal if denied)
- Pless v. McMonagle, 2000-Ohio-139 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 2000) (mandamus viability when relief requested; procedural posture)