Pankey v. Court of Common Pleas, 2011 Ohio 4258

Pankey petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas to rule on his October 4, 2010 Motion for Declaratory Judgment concerning his duties as a sex offender under the Adam Walsh Act (AWA).
Respondent filed a combined answer and motion for judgment on the pleadings on March 30, 2011.
Pankey has prior criminal convictions including rape (1973) and armed robbery (1973) with consecutive sentences, and a 2006 cocaine possession conviction.
AG’s 2007 notice classified Pankey as a Tier III sex offender effective January 1, 2008; Pankey challenged the classification in Case No. 08 CV 429, coordinated with other cases pending before the same court.
Pankey attached an October 4, 2010 notice of registration duties indicating a pre-AWA sex offender designation, signed by Pankey and a Sheriff’s Office agent, but lacking a case number and not journalized in any court proceeding.
As of February 11, 2011, Pankey sought mandamus to compel a ruling; the record shows a later default-judgment motion was filed in the declaratory judgment case and the State moved to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings in June 2011; the court held Pankey had an adequate remedy at law and denied the mandamus petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to mandamus to compel ruling on declaratory judgment	Pankey seeks a writ to force a ruling.	Respondent has no duty to act where an adequate remedy exists.	Denied; mandamus not warranted.
Adequate remedy at law defeated mandamus	Default-judgment or other ordinary remedy available.	Existence of remedy defeats relief in mandamus.	Yes; mandamus denied because an adequate remedy existed.

Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447 (Ohio 1996) (mandamus relief requires clear legal right and duty, and no adequate remedy at law)
Dehler v. Sutula, 74 Ohio St.3d 33 (Ohio 1995) (establishes relator burden in mandamus actions)