State ex rel. Morgan v. Fais (Slip Opinion), 146 Ohio St. 3d 428

David A. Morgan, convicted of murder in 1986, filed a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in April 2014 while incarcerated.
When the trial court took no immediate action, Morgan filed a petition for a writ of procedendo in the Tenth District Court of Appeals on November 5, 2014 to compel the trial judge to rule.
On November 18, 2014, Judge David W. Fais issued an entry denying Morgan’s motion to vacate.
Judge Fais (through counsel) moved to dismiss the procedendo action in the court of appeals and attached the November 18 entry denying the motion.
The court of appeals converted the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment, adopted the magistrate’s recommendation, and denied the writ as moot. Morgan appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether procedendo should issue to compel the trial judge to rule on Morgan’s motion to vacate	Morgan argued the trial court had failed to act and procedendo was appropriate to compel a ruling	Fais argued he had already performed the requested duty by issuing a ruling denying the motion	Denied — procedendo will not issue because the judge had already ruled

State ex rel. Hazel v. Bender, 129 Ohio St.3d 496 (2011) (procedendo will not issue to compel an act already performed)
State ex rel. Howard v. Skow, 102 Ohio St.3d 423 (2004) (same principle regarding mootness when duty has been performed)
State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel, 84 Ohio St.3d 252 (1998) (procedendo relief inappropriate when requested act already completed)