2013 Ohio 3621
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Relator Terrance Walter, pro se, sought a writ of procedendo to compel the trial court to rule on his Civ.R. 60(B) motion in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-485250-A.
- Walter filed an original action in this court styled against the State of Ohio (named as respondent).
- The respondent moved for summary judgment and attached a journal entry showing the trial court had ruled on Walter’s June 6, 2011 motion and a July 14, 2011 motion to remove costs/fines.
- The court found multiple procedural defects in Walter’s filing: improper form of original action, defective caption, failure to file a verified complaint and required R.C. 2969.25 affidavit, and naming an improper respondent.
- Because the trial court had already entered a ruling on the motion, the requested writ of procedendo was also moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relator properly commenced an original action for extraordinary relief | Walter treated the filing as a motion for writ of procedendo | Relator must commence an original action by filing a complaint/petition | Court: procedurally defective; must be a complaint/petition (Simms) |
| Whether the caption and party designation were proper | Walter named State of Ohio as respondent and did not use required caption format | The State has no duty to rule; original actions must be captioned as "State on relation of" with addresses per Civ.R.10(A) | Court: caption defective; naming State improper; dismissal warranted |
| Whether R.C. 2969.25 and local rule requirements were met | Walter did not provide a verified complaint or the statutory affidavit of prior filings | Respondent: noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25 and Loc.App.R. requires dismissal | Court: mandatory noncompliance; supports dismissal of writ |
| Whether a writ of procedendo remains necessary after the trial court’s action | Walter seeks an order compelling a ruling on his 60(B) motion | Respondent produced journal entry showing trial court ruled on the motions | Court: relief moot because trial court proceeded to judgment; writ denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula, 81 Ohio St.3d 110 (Ohio 1998) (original extraordinary actions must be commenced by complaint/petition, not motion)
- Rust v. Lucas County Board of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 139 (Ohio 2005) (failure to properly caption an original action supports dismissal)
- State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11 (Ohio 2003) (R.C. 2969.25 requirements are mandatory for inmate actions)
- State ex rel. Graham v. Niemeyer, 106 Ohio St.3d 466 (Ohio 2005) (noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25 warrants dismissal)
- State ex rel. Becker v. Eastlake, 93 Ohio St.3d 502 (Ohio 2001) (naming the State as respondent when it has no duty to act is improper)
- Yee v. Erie County Sheriff’s Dept., 51 Ohio St.3d 43 (Ohio 1990) (writ of procedendo is an order to an inferior court to proceed to judgment)