State ex rel. Covington v. Woods
2021 Ohio 2248
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Relator Venesia A. Covington, pro se, filed an original action in this court seeking a writ of procedendo against Judge William H. Woods for allegedly failing to sign and enter a proposed default-judgment entry and order for a judgment-debtor examination in Franklin C.P. No. 20CV-6484.
- In the underlying case Covington moved for default judgment on November 8, 2020 seeking about $795,000; defendants filed a memorandum contra and a motion for leave to answer on November 20, 2020.
- Covington says she submitted a proposed entry on December 8, 2020; the common pleas docket did not reflect entry of that order as of her procedendo filing on December 17, 2020.
- Judge Woods requested recusal (Dec. 23, 2020) because Covington had named him in another case; the matter was transferred to Judge Kimberly Cocroft; Woods’ term also expired Dec. 31, 2020.
- Judge Cocroft later ruled (Jan. 29, 2021) denying default judgment and deeming the defendants’ answer filed; Covington did not file a response to the respondent’s motion to dismiss in the present proceedings.
- The magistrate concluded (and this court adopted) that because the common pleas court has acted, the procedendo action is moot and Covington’s complaint fails to state a claim; respondent’s motion to dismiss was granted and the action dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether respondent failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty by not signing/entering Covington’s proposed default-judgment entry | Covington: she submitted a proposed entry and the judge refused or failed to sign/enter it, entitling her to procedendo | Respondent: the common pleas court had not yet ruled when Covington filed; subsequently the successor judge ruled, so no ongoing failure to act | Court: No relief — successor judge ruled; procedendo is moot because the court has acted |
| Whether a writ of procedendo is appropriate when a proposed entry was not entered | Covington: procedendo should compel the court to proceed to judgment on her default motion | Respondent: procedendo cannot dictate what judgment should be and is limited to compelling inferior courts to proceed; here the matter was resolved on the merits | Court: Procedendo unavailable to control the content of judgment; dismissal appropriate |
| Whether dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was proper | Covington: (no response filed) | Respondent: complaint fails to state a claim because there is no present duty to compel and the issue is moot | Court: Dismissal proper — complaint shows no set of facts entitling relief; magistrate’s findings adopted |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott, 77 Ohio St.3d 64 (1996) (elements for a writ of procedendo: clear legal right, clear legal duty, and lack of adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Dehler v. Sutula, 74 Ohio St.3d 33 (1995) (procedendo remedies inferior court’s refusal or unnecessary delay in disposing of a pending action)
- State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461 (1995) (procedendo may compel a court to proceed but cannot control what judgment should be)
- State ex rel. Howard v. Doneghy, 102 Ohio St.3d 355 (2004) (procedendo will not compel performance of a duty that has already been performed)
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975) (standard for dismissing a complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6): plaintiff must show some set of facts entitling relief)
- State ex rel. Hibbler v. O'Neill, 159 Ohio St.3d 566 (2020) (court may take judicial notice of public records; such records can establish mootness or jurisdictional defects)