State ex rel. Evans v. Mohr, 2018 Ohio 935

Background

Relator William H. Evans, Jr., an inmate at Ross Correctional Institution, filed an original action for a writ of mandamus asking the court to order the ODRC to remove a federal detainer from his ODRC inmate records and to notify/remove any other detainers.
ODRC moved to dismiss, attaching an affidavit from a Corrections Records Management Supervisor stating she reviewed Evans' records, confirmed the detainer was listed, contacted the U.S. Marshals Service (which had no open threat cases), and removed the detainer from Evans' records.
After ODRC's asserted removal, Evans filed a document titled "Motion for Declaratory Judgment," later sought findings of fact and conclusions of law, filed objections to the magistrate's recommendation, and moved for summary judgment seeking a declaratory judgment and monetary damages.
A magistrate recommended dismissal of the mandamus complaint as moot and recommended waiving costs because ODRC's conduct mooted Evans' requested relief.
The court independently reviewed the magistrate's decision, held that courts of appeals lack original jurisdiction over declaratory-judgment actions and that a "motion" for declaratory judgment is procedurally improper, dismissed the mandamus action as moot, waived relator's costs, and denied Evans' motion for summary judgment (including any new request for damages) as procedurally and substantively improper.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the mandamus action remains justiciable after ODRC removed the detainer	Evans sought an order removing the detainer and possibly declaratory relief to prevent future detainers	ODRC argued it removed the detainer, rendering the requested relief moot	Dismissed as moot; court will not decide abstract questions when requested relief has been satisfied
Whether the court of appeals may decide a declaratory-judgment request brought by motion	Evans filed a "motion for declaratory judgment" seeking findings and future protection	ODRC and court argued declaratory relief must be initiated properly and courts of appeals lack original jurisdiction over declaratory-judgment claims	Motion for declaratory judgment is a nullity; courts of appeals lack original jurisdiction on declaratory judgments
Whether Evans could obtain summary judgment or seek damages via his summary-judgment motion	Evans moved for summary judgment and monetary damages based on placement of the detainer	ODRC argued the action is moot and damages were not pleaded; summary judgment cannot raise new claims	Summary-judgment motion denied; damages not pleaded cannot be raised by motion and Civ.R.56 standards not met
Whether relator should bear costs after respondent's action mooted the case	Evans had filed the action and later objected	ODRC argued dismissal appropriate but did not seek costs against relator	Court adopted magistrate's recommendation to waive costs because respondent's action mooted the claim

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Ebbing v. Ricketts, 133 Ohio St.3d 339 (2012) (courts of appeals lack original jurisdiction over declaratory-judgment claims)
Ministerial Day Care Assn. v. Zelman, 100 Ohio St.3d 347 (2003) (same)
State ex rel. Shimko v. McMonagle, 92 Ohio St.3d 426 (2001) (same)
State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28 (1983) (elements required for writ of mandamus)
State ex rel. Boggs v. Springfield Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 72 Ohio St.3d 94 (1995) (pleading sufficiency for mandamus)
Eliza Jennings, Inc. v. Noble, 49 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (courts should dismiss moot appeals)
Miner v. Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237 (1910) (courts decide actual controversies; dismiss when relief cannot be granted)
Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651 (1895) (federal principle: courts avoid ruling on moot questions)
O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975) (standard for Civ.R.12(B)(6) dismissal)
Fuller v. German Motor Sales, Inc., 51 Ohio App.3d 101 (1st Dist. 1988) (procedural requirement to initiate declaratory-judgment actions)