2018 Ohio 2168
Ohio2018Background
- John Doe was convicted of several felonies; convictions were vacated on appeal and the charges dismissed with prejudice.
- In 2013 the Gallia County Common Pleas Court entered an order sealing Doe’s official records under R.C. 2953.52(B)(4) after finding statutory criteria were met.
- Doe later discovered appellate-court materials (including an opinion) remained publicly accessible; he sought relief from the Fourth District Court of Appeals and from the trial court.
- In 2017 Doe filed an emergency motion in the common pleas court to reseal records; he alleges the trial court has not ruled despite a July 2017 conference where the prosecutor did not object.
- Doe filed an original-action complaint in the Ohio Supreme Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel enforcement of the 2013 sealing order and a ruling on his 2017 motion; the common pleas court moved to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint should be dismissed for improper caption under R.C. 2731.04 | Doe asked leave to amend caption; failure to caption should not bar relief | Common pleas court argued statutory caption requirement mandates dismissal | Court: caption requirements not jurisdictional (Salemi); granted leave to amend and denied dismissal |
| Whether an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law exists, precluding extraordinary relief | R.C. 2953.53 notice/comply provisions are not an adequate legal/equitable remedy when court refuses to act | Common pleas court argued the sealing statute and enforcement in trial court provide adequate remedy | Court: statute’s notice procedures are not an adequate remedy for an unruled motion; extraordinary relief may be appropriate |
| Proper extraordinary writ: mandamus vs. procedendo | Doe sought mandamus to enforce sealing order and obtain ruling | Common pleas court implicitly contested relief by moving to dismiss rather than answering | Court: sua sponte converted mandamus request to procedendo because the real claim is undue delay/refusal to rule; procedendo is appropriate to compel a ruling |
| Whether court should issue writ without an answer from respondent | Doe's pleading alleges no ruling; requests immediate relief | Common pleas court moved to dismiss and thus did not answer; dissent argued peremptory writ premature without answer | Court: granted peremptory writ of procedendo ordering the common pleas court to rule (if not already done) and to transmit its ruling and the 2013 sealing order to the Fourth District; dissenters would have required an answer or issued mandamus instead |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Bates v. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate Dist., 130 Ohio St.3d 326 (standard for dismissal of original actions)
- Salemi v. Cleveland Metroparks, 145 Ohio St.3d 408 (captioning requirement for mandamus not jurisdictional)
- State ex rel. Ward v. Reed, 141 Ohio St.3d 50 (requirements for extraordinary writs and adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Dehler v. Sutula, 74 Ohio St.3d 33 (procedendo appropriate for undue delay)
- State ex rel. R.W. Sidley, Inc. v. Crawford, 100 Ohio St.3d 113 (procedendo definition and use)
- State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Louden, 91 Ohio St.3d 61 (sua sponte conversion of requested writ)
- State ex rel. Rodak v. Betleski, 104 Ohio St.3d 345 (peremptory writ standards; uncontroverted facts required)
- State ex rel. Charvat v. Frye, 114 Ohio St.3d 76 (relator’s burden to show clear legal right to proceed)