State ex rel. Roberts v. Hatheway (Slip Opinion)
2021 Ohio 4097
| Ohio | 2021Background
- In June 2020, Mallon Roberts filed a motion in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas challenging the trial judge’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
- In April 2021 Roberts filed a petition in the First District Court of Appeals seeking a writ of mandamus and/or procedendo to compel Judge Alison Hatheway to rule on that motion.
- Eight days after Roberts filed in the court of appeals, Judge Hatheway issued an entry dismissing Roberts’s motion on res judicata grounds.
- The court of appeals dismissed Roberts’s petition, holding the procedendo claim moot and that mandamus was not the appropriate remedy.
- Roberts appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether procedendo was appropriate to compel a ruling | Roberts: trial judge refused/delayed ruling on jurisdictional motion | Hatheway: judge later ruled on the motion, so no refusal/delay remains | Procedendo claim is moot because the trial court ruled on the motion |
| Whether mandamus could compel the judge to act or provide additional relief | Roberts: requested mandamus to compel action on motion (and press the underlying jurisdictional claim) | Hatheway: mandamus cannot compel an act already performed; judge acted by issuing dismissal | Mandamus unavailable because the requested act was already performed |
| Whether an adequate remedy at law existed | Roberts: sought extraordinary writs instead of appeal to challenge judge’s handling | Hatheway: Roberts has an adequate remedy by direct appeal from the trial-court ruling | An adequate remedy exists by way of appeal; extraordinary writs are inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530 (1999) (describing when procedendo is appropriate)
- State ex rel. Morgan v. Fais, 146 Ohio St.3d 428 (2016) (procedendo claim becomes moot once the court performs the requested duty)
- State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278 (1996) (mandamus will not issue to compel an act already performed)
- State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger, 99 Ohio St.3d 303 (2003) (extraordinary writs will not issue when an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law exists)