State ex rel. Brown v. Logan, 6 N.E.3d 42

Felix Brown Jr. was convicted of murder in 1995 and sentenced to 18 years to life.
In Aug–Sept 2011 Brown filed an omnibus Civ.R. 60(B) motion and on Sept. 20, 2011 a Civ.R. 15(A) motion for leave to amend that omnibus motion.
The trial court denied the omnibus motion on Sept. 20, 2011 but did not expressly mention the leave-to-amend motion.
The Eleventh District remanded for the trial court to rule on Brown’s motion, but its first remand entry mistakenly referenced a motion to withdraw a guilty plea; the court vacated that entry and issued a nunc pro tunc remand on June 13, 2012.
On June 13, 2012 the trial court denied the motion for leave to amend (calling it a nullity), and Brown subsequently filed mandamus/procedendo petitions in the appellate court; the court dismissed the petition as moot and sua sponte revoked Brown’s in forma pauperis privileges.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the mandamus/procedendo petition but reversed the revocation of in forma pauperis status.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Brown)	Defendant's Argument (Logan)	Held
Mootness / availability of writ	Trial court’s June 13 order was void because it acted outside the first erroneous remand; motion to amend still pending, so petition not moot	Appellate dismissal and trial-court ruling eliminated basis for writ	Petition dismissed as moot/merits denied — Brown failed to show entitlement to writ
Trial-court jurisdiction under remand	First remand only concerned a nonexistent guilty-plea withdrawal; therefore trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide leave-to-amend	Trial court had jurisdiction (nunc pro tunc may have been journalized first) or in any event Brown didn’t eliminate possibility of jurisdiction	Court held Brown failed to prove lack of trial-court jurisdiction and thus failed to carry burden for extraordinary relief
Res judicata based on prior dismissal	N/A (argued only by judge)	The first dismissal bars relitigation	Rejected — earlier dismissal was for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, so it does not operate as res judicata
Revocation of in forma pauperis status	Revocation is excessive; Brown is not a declared vexatious litigator	Court of appeals: Brown’s repetitious/frivolous filings justify revocation	Reversed — revocation abused discretion because it was imposed after essentially a single filing and Brown’s conduct did not reach the high threshold required

State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier, 988 N.E.2d 564 (Ohio 2013) (procedendo standard: right, duty, and lack of adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna, 652 N.E.2d 742 (Ohio 1995) (procedendo proper when court refuses or delays entry of judgment)
Billiter v. Banks, 988 N.E.2d 556 (Ohio 2013) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction does not operate as res judicata on refiling)
Wallace v. Dept. of Commerce, 773 N.E.2d 1018 (Ohio 2002) (dicta in jurisdictional dismissal not res judicata)
In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180 (U.S. 1989) (revocation of in forma pauperis after numerous meritless filings)
In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177 (U.S. 1991) (revocation of filing privileges for prolific, meritless litigation)
State ex rel. Richard v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 654 N.E.2d 443 (Ohio App.) (in forma pauperis revoked after many meritless original actions)