State ex rel. Hillman v. Woods, 2021 Ohio 1080

Relator Robert L. Hillman, a prisoner, sued a Franklin County assistant prosecutor; the common pleas court dismissed the complaint on July 11, 2019.
Hillman filed a motion for relief from judgment in that case on February 21, 2020.
Hillman filed a motion to proceed to judgment on July 29, 2020, asking the judge to rule on the motion for relief from judgment.
Hillman filed an original action in this court seeking a writ of procedendo on September 16, 2020, alleging the judge had not ruled.
The trial judge entered a decision denying the February 21, 2020 motion on September 18, 2020; the judge then moved to dismiss Hillman’s procedendo petition on October 15, 2020.
The magistrate recommended dismissal because the judge had already ruled (making the writ unnecessary); the court adopted the magistrate’s decision and granted the motion to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a writ of procedendo is appropriate to compel the trial judge to rule on Hillman’s Feb. 21, 2020 motion for relief from judgment	Hillman argued the judge had failed to rule and thus should be ordered to proceed to judgment	Judge argued he already ruled on the motion, so procedendo is not warranted	Court held procedendo will not lie because the judge already ruled; dismissal granted
Whether Hillman’s July 29, 2020 motion to proceed to judgment survives after the judge’s subsequent ruling	Hillman sought an order compelling a ruling on the pending motion for relief from judgment	Judge argued the subsequent ruling rendered the motion to proceed moot	Court held the motion to proceed to judgment was rendered moot by the judge’s ruling

State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott, 77 Ohio St.3d 64 (1996) (defines requirements for a writ of procedendo)
State ex rel. Dehler v. Sutula, 74 Ohio St.3d 33 (1995) (procedendo remedies delay or refusal to render judgment)
State ex rel. Levin v. Sheffield Lake, 70 Ohio St.3d 104 (1994) (procedendo designed to remedy inferior court’s failure to timely dispose of an action)
State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel, 84 Ohio St.3d 252 (1998) (procedendo will not compel action already performed)
State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen, 88 Ohio St.3d 313 (2000) (procedendo cannot be used to compel a completed act)
State ex rel. Lester v. Pepple, 130 Ohio St.3d 353 (2011) (procedendo will not lie when the act sought has already been performed)
State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 128 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011) (court may take judicial notice of related pleadings and orders)
State ex rel. Ohio Republican Party v. Fitzgerald, 145 Ohio St.3d 92 (2015) (judicial notice principles in original actions)