State ex rel. Russell v. Klatt (Slip Opinion)State ex rel. Russell v. Klatt (Slip Opinion)
[Until this оpinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Russell v. Klatt, Sliр Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-875.]
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 Sоuth Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that correctiоns may be made before the opinion is published.
SLIP OPINION NO. 2020-OHIO-875
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advancе sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Russell v. Klatt, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-875.]
Mandamus—Mandamus may not be used to compel a court to order itself to act—Relator challenging factual inaccuracies in court of appeals’ decision had adequate remedy at law by way of motion for reconsideration or appeal to higher сourt—Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing petition affirmed.
(No. 2019-1194—Submitted January 7, 2020—Decided March 12, 2020.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals fоr Franklin County, No. 19AP-264.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Mark R. Russell, appeals the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, Tenth District Court of Appeals Judge William A. Klatt and the Tenth District Court of Apрeals, to correct alleged factual errors in a 2004 decision. For the reasons below, we affirm the Tenth District‘s judgmеnt.
I. BACKGROUND
{¶ 2} In 2003, Russell was convicted of murder with a firearm specification and sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 18 years to life. In 2004, the Tenth District affirmed Russell‘s convictions and sentence, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 03AP-666, 2004-Ohio-2501, and this court denied review, 103 Ohio St.3d 1464, 2004-Ohio-5056, 815 N.E.2d 679.
{¶ 3} In April 2019, Russell filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in thе Tenth District, seeking to compel Judge Klatt and the Tenth District to correct “untruthful factual findings” in the 2004 decision and requesting a declaration that those findings are “void/inaccurate.”1 Russell attached
{¶ 4} Judge Klatt and the Tenth District filed a motion to dismiss, which Russell opposed. The court of appeаls granted the motion, holding that Russell was not entitled to mandamus relief because he had an adequate remedy in the оrdinary course of the law.
{¶ 5} Russell appealed, asserting two related propositions of law. He argues that the Tenth District erred by dismissing his mandamus petition because the appellees’ failure to correct the alleged inаccuracies in the 2004 decision violated his rights under the
II. ANALYSIS
{¶ 6} We review the dismissal of a mandamus complaint under
{¶ 7} A writ of mandamus is “a writ, issued in the name of the state to an inferior tribunal, a corporation, board, or person, commanding the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty.”
{¶ 8} The Tenth District properly dismissed Russell‘s petition because the relief he seeks is not available in mandamus. A writ of mandamus commands “an inferior tribunal, a corporation, board, or person” to perform an act. (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 9} Moreover, even if Russell had sought a writ against an inferior tribunal, he still would not be entitled to relief in mandamus because he had an adequate remedy at law. Russell could have raised his claims about factual inaccuracies by filing a motion asking the Tenth District tо reconsider its decision in 2004. His failure to “take such an avenue does not now entitle [him] to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus.” State ex rel. Newberry v. O‘Neill, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2003 CA 84, 2004-Ohio-4686, ¶ 7. Alternatively, Russell could have included a claim about the allеged factual inaccuracies when he appealed the Tenth District‘s 2004 decision to this court. “A discretionary appeal to this court qualifies as an adequate remedy at law, which will preclude an extraordinary writ, even if this court declines to hear the case.” State ex rel. Turner v. Corrigan, 142 Ohio St.3d 303, 2015-Ohio-980, 29 N.E.3d 962, ¶ 26.
{¶ 10} Russell argues that even if his claims could have been raised in a motion for reconsideration or on direct appeal to
{¶ 11} For these reasons, the court of appeals properly dismissed Russell‘s complaint for failure to state a claim in mandamus. Therefore, it is unnecessary for the court to analyze the merits of Russell‘s constitutional claims.
III. CONCLUSION
{¶ 12} For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., concur.
Mark R. Russell, pro se.
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Jeffrey J. Boucher and Brandi Laser Seskes, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees.