State ex rel. Evans v. McGrath (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 8707
| Ohio | 2017Background
- In 2015 William H. Evans Jr. sued the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) in the Court of Claims alleging negligent medical care at Ross Correctional Institution. Judge Patrick M. McGrath presided.
- While that malpractice case was pending, Evans filed a petition in the Tenth District seeking mandamus to compel Judge McGrath to let his suit proceed and prohibition to stop the judge from dismissing it.
- The Tenth District referred the petition to a magistrate, who recommended dismissal for failure to file the certified cashier’s statement required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1); the court adopted the dismissal but gave alternate statutory and jurisdictional reasons.
- After the Tenth District dismissal, Judge McGrath entered judgment dismissing Evans’s Court of Claims case under Civ.R. 41(B)(2) for failure to present evidence; Evans appealed that dismissal to the Tenth District.
- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the appellate dismissal of Evans’s mandamus and prohibition petition, holding that Evans had an adequate remedy by appeal and therefore was not entitled to extraordinary relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus should compel the Court of Claims judge to allow Evans to proceed despite statutory filing requirements | Evans: he has an absolute right to pursue the civil action and the judge must allow it to proceed | Judge/State: statutory requirements (e.g., R.C. 2969.25) must be enforced; judge has no duty to ignore them | Denied — no clear right to relief; statutory requirements cannot be disregarded |
| Whether prohibition should prevent the judge from dismissing Evans’s malpractice case | Evans: prohibition should bar the judge from dismissing his lawsuit | Judge/State: judge had jurisdiction and may dismiss; prohibition cannot be used to preempt an authorized judicial act | Denied — petition improperly sought to bar a court with jurisdiction from acting |
| Whether extraordinary writs are available given appellate remedies | Evans: extraordinary relief appropriate now | Judge/State: appeal from dismissal is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law | Denied — appeal is adequate remedy; mandamus/prohibition not available |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Tucker v. Matia, 147 Ohio St.3d 418 (Ohio 2016) (standards for mandamus)
- Shoop v. State, 144 Ohio St.3d 374 (Ohio 2015) (appeal is generally adequate remedy to preclude writ)
- State ex rel. Bell v. Pfeiffer, 131 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ohio 2012) (requirements for prohibition)
- State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (Ohio 1967) (appeal as adequate remedy doctrine)