State ex rel. Johnson v. Jensen (Slip Opinion), 14 N.E.3d 1039

Relator Tyrone Johnson filed a petition for a writ of procedendo (May 30, 2013) alleging Judge James D. Jensen failed to rule on a motion to dismiss an indictment in Johnson’s criminal case.
Johnson had been convicted and sentenced in May 2007 to 20 years to life; the motion to dismiss was assertedly pending in the common pleas court.
Johnson attached to his petition a document he said was a time-stamped copy of the motion to dismiss; the common pleas clerk’s docket did not show the filing.
The Lucas County Court of Appeals dismissed the petition sua sponte, citing absence of the filing on the clerk’s docket and Johnson’s alleged failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 affidavit requirements.
The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the dismissal but on a different ground: Johnson named the wrong respondent. Judge Jensen had left the common pleas bench in December 2012 and was not assigned to Johnson’s case when the petition was filed; Judge Michael Goulding was assigned instead.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the judge named in the procedendo petition had a clear legal duty to act on the motion to dismiss	Johnson: Jensen failed to rule on the motion; Jensen should be ordered to act	Implicit: Jensen cannot be required to act if he is not the judge assigned to the case; the clerk’s docket showed no filing	Court: Petition fatally defective because it named the wrong respondent; Jensen could not perform the requested act
Whether failure to show a time-stamped filing on the clerk’s docket defeats the petition	Johnson: He attached a time-stamped copy showing filing	Court of Appeals: No docket entry suggests no filing; judge had no duty to rule	Court: Decision affirmed on wrong-respondent ground (court did not rely on this alone)
Compliance with R.C. 2969.25 affidavit requirement	Johnson: He had filed the required affidavit and attached it to his petition	Court of Appeals: Johnson failed to file the affidavit showing prior civil actions	Court: Affirmed on wrong-respondent ground; procedural noncompliance noted but not central to Supreme Court’s holding
Availability of mandamus/procedendo relief when respondent cannot perform requested act	Johnson: Relief appropriate to compel ruling	State: A judge who cannot perform the act is not under duty to do so	Court: Relief unavailable where named respondent cannot perform the requested act; petition dismissed

State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631 (Ohio 1967) (a writ will not issue when the respondent cannot perform the act requested)