State ex rel. Nyamusevya v. Hawkins (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 1122

CitiMortgage sued Nyamusevya in 2010; the trial court granted summary judgment in 2013 but the Tenth District affirmed standing and remanded for a damages trial on amount owed.
Nyamusevya repeatedly challenged CitiMortgage’s standing and litigated motions and appeals; the Tenth District previously rejected his standing challenge.
At the November 2018 damages trial Nyamusevya walked out after disputing the court’s authority; the court entered judgment on directed verdict for CitiMortgage.
Nyamusevya filed postjudgment motions, sought stays, and filed bankruptcy (which stayed the sheriff’s sale); he then filed this original action (mandamus and prohibition) in the Tenth District in April 2019 against Judge Hawkins.
The magistrate recommended dismissal: mandamus because the trial court had already ruled (explicitly or implicitly) on the motions; prohibition because the court of appeals had already decided standing. The Tenth District adopted the recommendation and dismissed for failure to state a claim; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mandamus to compel rulings on motions	Nyamusevya: trial judge failed/refused to rule on his motions (so mandamus should compel rulings)	Judge Hawkins: the trial court already ruled on those motions (explicitly or implicitly); mandamus cannot compel what is already done	Dismissed: docket shows the specific March/April 2019 motion was denied April 18, 2019; mandamus moot because relief already performed
Prohibition to stop further prosecution / invalidate foreclosure judgment	Nyamusevya: alleged defects (wrong preliminary judicial report, absent final report, standing defects) meant the trial court lacked authority to enter judgment	Judge Hawkins: foreclosure is within common-pleas subject-matter jurisdiction; alleged defects do not show a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction; adequate remedies exist by defense and appeal	Dismissed: prohibition requires patent, unambiguous lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; alleged defects do not meet that standard, so adequate remedy on appeal exists

State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 960 N.E.2d 452 (2012) (elements required for mandamus)
State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 856 N.E.2d 966 (2006) (standard for dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) in mandamus actions)
State ex rel. Simmons v. Breaux, 155 N.E.3d 857 (2020) (mandamus may lie when a court refuses to rule on a motion)
State ex rel. Roberts v. Marsh, 151 N.E.3d 625 (2020) (mandamus cannot compel performance of a duty already performed)
State ex rel. Dobson v. Handwork, 151 N.E.3d 613 (2020) (implicit overruling of pending motions when final judgment entered)
State ex rel. Neguse v. McIntosh, 161 N.E.3d 571 (2020) (courts may take notice of related dockets when deciding a dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 21 N.E.3d 1040 (2014) (lack of standing does not affect subject-matter jurisdiction in foreclosure)
State ex rel. Plant v. Cosgrove, 893 N.E.2d 485 (2008) (prohibition generally lies only for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)