State ex rel. Evans v. McGrath (Slip Opinion), 104 N.E.3d 779

In 2014, inmate William H. Evans Jr. sued the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction in the Ohio Court of Claims for negligence.
Court of Claims Judge Patrick M. McGrath dismissed the suit; Evans appealed.
The Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding Evans’s complaint met the liberal pleading standard for a negligence claim and remanding "for further appropriate proceedings."
On remand, Evans filed a separate action in the Tenth District seeking writs of mandamus and prohibition against Judge McGrath, asking the judge be barred from addressing liability and ordered to hold a damages-only hearing.
The court of appeals dismissed Evans’s extraordinary-writs complaint, concluding Evans had misread the appellate mandate (the appeals court had not decided negligence on the merits) and that McGrath was not disobeying any appellate mandate or lacking authority to hear the case.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a writ of mandamus should compel the Court of Claims judge to hold a damages-only hearing	Evans: the Tenth District’s remand and its ruling on the complaint established liability; mandamus required to enforce a damages-only hearing	Judge McGrath: the appeals court only ruled pleading sufficiency; it did not adjudicate liability and McGrath has authority to preside on liability	Denied — appeals court did not direct a finding of liability; mandamus inappropriate
Whether a writ of prohibition should bar the judge from exercising jurisdiction over liability	Evans: res judicata, law of the case, and cross-error rule prevent relitigation of liability	McGrath: appeals court’s mandate did not remove his authority to decide liability; no shown lack of jurisdiction	Denied — no clear-and-convincing proof that judge lacks authority or is violating a mandate
Whether extraordinary relief is available (adequacy of ordinary remedies)	Evans: no adequate remedy at law to prevent relitigation of liability	McGrath: ordinary appellate and trial procedures remain adequate	Denied — plaintiff failed to show lack of adequate legal remedy
Standard of proof for extraordinary writs	Evans: urged issuance based on his reading of mandate	State/Defendant: requires clear and convincing evidence of right to writs	Confirmed — plaintiff did not meet clear-and-convincing standard

State ex rel. Marsh v. Tibbals, 149 Ohio St.3d 656 (2017) (elements and standard for mandamus; clear-and-convincing proof required)
State ex rel. Elder v. Camplese, 144 Ohio St.3d 89 (2015) (elements required for prohibition)
State ex rel. Heck v. Kessler, 72 Ohio St.3d 98 (1995) (mandamus may compel lower court to comply with an appellate mandate)
State ex rel. Minor v. Eschen, 74 Ohio St.3d 134 (1995) (Ohio Supreme Court may exercise plenary authority over extraordinary actions)