2015 Ohio 3773
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Relator Larry Knox, a pro se inmate, filed an unreadable and largely incoherent petition for a writ of procedendo (originally filed as No. 102859; refiled as No. 103003); the court consolidated the matters.
- The trial judge (Respondent Judge Joseph D. Russo) moved for summary judgment; Knox filed objections.
- Knox’s filings advanced numerous fragmented claims across multiple lower-court case numbers (CR-14-590340-A, CR-13-576939-A, CV-08-646011), seeking rulings, document production, dismissal of charges, and other relief.
- The court found Knox’s petition failed to state a coherent, specific request for procedendo and that many claims were attempts to obtain merits relief (e.g., dismissal, challenges to indictments) not cognizable in an original procedendo action.
- The court examined dockets: CR-14-590340-A had assigned counsel, was transferred off Judge Russo’s docket, and showed no unreasonable delay; CR-13-576939-A had been dismissed.
- Court granted respondent’s summary judgment, denied the writ of procedendo, and ordered Knox to pay costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether procedendo is appropriate to compel rulings or production of documents | Knox sought orders compelling Judge Russo to rule on pro se motions and to produce documents (continuances, transcripts, journal entries, etc.) | Respondent argued procedendo is improper because Knox failed to show a clear right to relief, failed to identify a specific pending motion, and procedendo cannot control what judgment the lower court should enter | Denied — procedendo cannot be used to control rulings or compel specific judgments; Knox did not show a clear right or identify a specific motion requiring a ruling |
| Whether Knox established a clear legal duty by the judge to proceed to judgment | Knox asserted delays and failure to rule on motions (including motion to waive counsel) | Respondent showed assigned counsel representation, docket activity (competency hearing, appointment of public defender), and recusal/transfer of the case; argued no unreasonable delay and no duty to rule on pro se filings while defendant is represented | Denied — no clear legal duty; docket activity and transfer/recusal negate unreasonable delay claim |
| Whether procedendo can be used to attack indictments, speedy-trial, or other substantive defects | Knox argued speedy-trial violations, defective indictments, jurisdictional defects, and improper reclassification as sex offender | Respondent argued those are merits defenses or appeal issues not remedied by an original writ of procedendo | Denied — such substantive and collateral challenges are not cognizable in procedendo; other remedies (appeal, postconviction) are appropriate |
| Whether procedural filing defects (R.C. 2969.25(C) statement) warranted dismissal | Respondent claimed Knox failed to attach the required statement of account | Court noted Knox’s original attachments complied and were retained, so dismissal on that ground was not required | Court did not dismiss for lack of R.C. 2969.25(C) statement; instead denied writ on substantive/procedural lack of cognizable claim |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Brown v. Shoemaker, 38 Ohio St.3d 344, 528 N.E.2d 188 (Ohio 1988) (elements required for procedendo: clear right and no adequate remedy at law)
- State ex rel. Cochran v. Quillin, 20 Ohio St.2d 6, 251 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio 1969) (court must have a clear legal duty to proceed to judgment)
- State ex rel. Doe v. Tracy, 51 Ohio App.3d 198, 555 N.E.2d 674 (12th Dist. 1988) (procedendo appropriate when court refuses or delays rendering judgment)
- State ex rel. Davey v. Owen, 133 Ohio St. 96, 12 N.E.2d 144 (Ohio 1937) (procedendo does not control what judgment an inferior court should enter)
- State ex rel. Ratliff v. Marshall, 30 Ohio St.2d 101, 282 N.E.2d 582 (Ohio 1972) (procedendo is extraordinary; it commands proceeding to judgment but not interference with ordinary court procedure)