State ex rel. Hillman v. Phipps, 2023 Ohio 635

Relator Robert L. Hillman (pro se, incarcerated) filed a motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial in Franklin C.P. No. 13CR-6648 on May 18, 2022.
Judge Karen Held Phipps presided over that case.
On October 6, 2022, Judge Phipps entered an order denying Hillman’s May 18, 2022 motion.
Hillman filed an original action in this court (procedendo) on October 20, 2022 asking this court to compel the judge to rule on his May 18 motion.
A magistrate recommended sua sponte dismissal because the judge already ruled; no objections were filed.
The court adopted the magistrate’s decision and dismissed the procedendo complaint; all pending motions were deemed moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether procedendo may be used to compel the judge to rule on the May 18, 2022 motion	Hillman sought an order compelling Judge Phipps to issue a ruling on his delayed-new-trial leave motion	Phipps had already ruled (denied the motion on Oct. 6, 2022), so there is nothing left to compel	Dismissed: procedendo does not lie to compel an act already performed; no live relief available
Whether relator established the elements for procedendo (clear right, clear duty, no adequate remedy)	Relator asserted a right to prompt judicial action and no adequate remedy	The required elements are not satisfied because the duty was discharged by the Oct. 6 order	Dismissed: no clear, remediable right because respondent already acted
Whether the court may take judicial notice of related court records to evaluate the petition	Hillman implicitly contested the lack of ruling	Respondent relied on the court record showing the October 6 ruling	Court may judicially notice accessible pleadings/orders and did so to determine the petition’s merit
Whether pending motions remain viable after dismissal	Hillman sought relief by separate motions	Respondent argued dismissal moots other filings	All pending motions were denied as moot

State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott, 77 Ohio St.3d 64 (1996) (elements and purpose of writ of procedendo)
State ex rel. Dehler v. Sutula, 74 Ohio St.3d 33 (1995) (procedendo addresses a court's refusal or undue delay in rendering judgment)
State ex rel. Levin v. Sheffield Lake, 70 Ohio St.3d 104 (1994) (procedendo remedies failure or refusal to dispose of a pending action)
State ex rel. Lester v. Pepple, 130 Ohio St.3d 353 (2011) (procedendo will not compel an act already performed)
State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen, 88 Ohio St.3d 313 (2000) (procedendo cannot be used when the act sought to be compelled has been completed)
State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel, 84 Ohio St.3d 252 (1998) (same principle preventing procedendo to compel completed acts)
State ex rel. Everhart v. McIntosh, 115 Ohio St.3d 195 (2007) (courts may judicially notice appropriate public records and opinions)
State ex rel. Ohio Republican Party v. Fitzgerald, 145 Ohio St.3d 92 (2015) (judicial notice of related pleadings and orders is permissible)