2021 Ohio 3125
Ohio2021Background
- In Nov. 2020, pro se petitioner Richard A. Davidson (incarcerated) filed a mandamus petition in the Twelfth District Court of Appeals seeking an order to compel Judge Steven P. Beathard to provide a gratis copy of Davidson’s criminal-trial transcript.
- Judge Beathard responded admitting Davidson was entitled to a free transcript and directed the clerk to serve Davidson; Davidson admits he received the transcript.
- After receipt, Davidson moved for default judgment in the court of appeals, arguing the three-year delay prejudiced his direct appeal and postconviction relief and that he was entitled to a new trial.
- The court of appeals dismissed the mandamus petition as moot and denied Davidson’s motion for default judgment. Davidson appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
- On appeal Davidson filed multiple motions (leave to file a supplemental brief challenging a Civ.R. 60(B) ruling, an App.R. 18(C) default-judgment motion, and a motion for judicial notice); the Supreme Court denied the motions and affirmed the court of appeals’ dismissal as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus relief was available after Davidson received the transcript | Davidson argued he was wrongfully denied a transcript for three years and that delay prejudiced appeals and postconviction relief, warranting further relief (new trial) | Judge Beathard provided the requested transcript; therefore the mandamus claim was moot | Dismissed as moot: a writ will not compel an act already performed |
| Whether Davidson was entitled to default judgment for appellee’s failure to file a brief in the Supreme Court | Davidson sought default judgment and asked for reversal/new trial | The Court noted its practice rules control and an appellee's failure to file a brief does not automatically entitle appellant to default judgment | Denied: no default because Beathard timely responded in the court of appeals and the Court’s rules do not authorize automatic default relief |
| Whether the Supreme Court should take judicial notice of Davidson’s allegations that the judge intentionally withheld the transcript | Davidson asked the Court to judicially notice alleged intentional withholding and constitutional violations | Respondent opposed adding new matter beyond the record and disputable facts | Denied: court will not add new matter or take judicial notice of facts subject to reasonable dispute |
| Whether the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to rule on Davidson’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion while appeal was pending | Davidson claimed the court of appeals lost jurisdiction under Howard when the appeal was pending | Implicitly, the State/Beathard maintained that issue was separate and not before the Supreme Court in this mandamus appeal | Denied leave to brief; Court held the Civ.R. 60(B) issue was not before it and remand was not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard v. Catholic Social Serv. of Cuyahoga Cty., Inc., 70 Ohio St.3d 141 (court of appeals loses jurisdiction over Civ.R. 60(B) motion once appeal is pending)
- State ex rel. Love v. O’Donnell, 150 Ohio St.3d 378 (mandamus elements: clear right, clear duty, and lack of adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Scruggs v. Sadler, 102 Ohio St.3d 160 (writ will not issue to compel an act already performed)
- State ex rel. Harris v. Turner, 160 Ohio St.3d 506 (courts generally may not add new matter to the record or take judicial notice of disputed facts)
- State ex rel. Spirko v. Judges of the Court of Appeals, Third Appellate Dist., 27 Ohio St.3d 13 (default judgment principles in mandamus context)
- Ohio Valley Radiology Assocs. v. Ohio Valley Hosp. Assn., 28 Ohio St.3d 118 (default appropriate only when defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend)
- Majnaric v. Majnaric, 46 Ohio App.2d 157 (remand for consideration of Civ.R. 60(B) requires good cause)