THE STATE EX REL. EVANS, APPELLANT, v. MOHR, DIR., APPELLEE.
No. 2018-0452
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
December 20, 2018
Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-5089
Submitted June 26, 2018
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Evans v. Mohr, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-5089.]
NOTICE
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the oрinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
SLIP OPINION NO. 2018-OHIO-5089
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Evans v. Mohr, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-5089.]
Mandamus—Writ will not issue to сompel act already performed—Court of appeals’ dismissal of complaint affirmеd.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 17AP-571, 2018-Ohio-935.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1}
I. Background
{¶ 2} Evans is an inmate at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center. On August 9, 2017, Evans filed a complaint requesting a writ of mandamus to order DRC to remove a federal detainer that Evans alleged was erroneously placed on his prison record. After some investigation into thе matter, DRC removed the detainer. Mohr filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that DRC had already removed the detainer from Evans‘s record. Approximately one week after DRC filed the motion to dismiss, Evans filed a motion for declaratory judgment under the same case number that was assigned to the сomplaint for a writ of mandamus. A Tenth District magistrate recommended dismissing the complaint and waiving the costs because DRC‘s actions had rendered the case moot. Evans filed objections in which he аrgued that a declaratory judgment should have been granted preventing placement of future detainers. Next, Evans filed a motion for summary judgment in which he again requested that the declaratory judgment bе granted and that he be awarded “monetary damages as allowable by law.”
{¶ 3} The court of appeals dismissed Evans‘s complaint as moot and denied Evans‘s subsequent motions.
II. Legal Analysis
A. Mandamus to compel removal of detainer
{¶ 4} “A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel an act already performed.” State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 279, 658 N.E.2d 723 (1996). Mohr‘s motion to dismiss established that the relief that Evans sought—removal of “all traces” of the federal detainer placed on his prison record—has been provided. And Evans does not dispute thаt DRC improperly or erroneously removed the federal detainer. Indeed, no case in cоntroversy exists anymore in Evans‘s case. And when there is “no case in controversy, there will be no appellate review.” Adkins v. McFaul, 76 Ohio St.3d 350, 350, 667 N.E.2d 1171 (1996).
{¶ 5} Typically, “courts cannot rely on evidence or allegations outsidе the complaint to decide a
B. Declaratory Judgment
{¶ 7} After DRC removed the detainer from Evans‘s record, Evans filed a motion for a declaratory judgment in the Tenth District Court of Appeals under the same case number as his complaint for a writ of mandamus. Specifically, Evans asked for an оrder that would prevent future modifications to his DRC records. Evans‘s claim that he is entitled to a declaratory judgment is baseless. Despite Evans‘s argument to the contrary, “courts of appeals lack original jurisdiction over claims for declaratory judgment.” State ex rel. Shimko v. McMonagle, 92 Ohio St.3d 426, 430, 751 N.E.2d 472 (2001). Accordingly, the court of appeals correctly denied Evans‘s motion.
C. Request for monetary damages
{¶ 8} Evans also argues that the court of appeals erred in denying his motion for summary judgment, through which he requested an award of monetary damages in light of the impropеr placement of the detainer on his prison record. The court of appeals correctly held that Evans could not assert a claim for monetary damages in a summary-judgment motion when hе failed to include that claim in his mandamus complaint.
Judgment affirmed.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur.
O‘DONNELL, J., concurs in judgment only.
William H. Evans Jr., pro se.
Michael DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, and George Horvath, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.