Ramirez v. Richland Cty. Common Pleas Court , 2012 Ohio 661 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Ramirez v. Richland Cty. Common Pleas Court, 
    2012-Ohio-661
    .]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    MOISES RAMIREZ                                  :       JUDGES:
    :       Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
    Petitioner                      :       Hon. John W. Wise, J.
    :       Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
    -vs-                                            :
    :       CASE NO. 11CA87
    RICHLAND COUNTY COMMON                          :
    PLEAS COURT                                     :
    :       OPINION
    Respondent                      :
    CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                            Appeal from the Court of Common
    Pleas, Case No. 2008CV0403
    JUDGMENT:                                           Dismissed
    DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                             February 7, 2012
    APPEARANCES:
    For Petitioner:                                     For Respondent:
    Moises Ramirez, Pro Se                              Daniel J. Benoit, Esq.
    Allen Correctional Institution                      Assistant Richland County Prosecutor
    P.O. Box 4501                                       38 South Park, Second Floor
    Lima, Ohio 45802-4501                               Mansfield, Ohio 44902
    Richland County, Case No. 11CA87
    Delaney, P.J.
    {¶1}   Petitioner Moises Ramirez has filed a “Motion for Writ of Mandamus”
    requesting a writ be issued which would require Respondent to rule on a motion
    that Petitioner filed in the trial court. Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss
    indicating the trial court has now ruled on the motion.
    {¶2}   Prior to reaching the merits of the motion for writ and motion to dismiss,
    we find Petitioner has not properly brought this action. R.C. 2731.04 provides,
    “Application for the writ of mandamus must be by petition, in the name of the
    state on the relation of the person applying, and verified by affidavit.” Failure to
    comply with these requirements is grounds for dismissal. Thorne v. State, 8th
    Dist. No. 85024, 
    2004-Ohio-6288
    ; Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen
    County, 
    173 Ohio St. 226
    , 
    181 N.E.2d 270
     (1962). Petitioner herein has not
    properly brought this cause as a petition in the name of the state. Blankenship v.
    Blackwell, 
    103 Ohio St.3d 567
    , 
    2004-Ohio-5596
    , 
    817 N.E.2d 382
    ; Perotti v.
    Mahoning County Clerk, 7th Dist. No. 05-MA-202, 
    2006-Ohio-673
    . See also,
    Selway v. Court of Common Pleas Stark County, 5th Dist. No. 2007CA00213,
    
    2007-Ohio-4566
    .
    {¶3}   Petitioner also has failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25 by neglecting to file
    an affidavit detailing his prior civil filings. The Supreme Court has held, “[t]he
    requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them
    subjects an inmate's action to dismissal.” State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 
    99 Ohio St.3d 11
    , 
    2003-Ohio-2262
    , 
    788 N.E.2d 634
    , ¶ 5.
    Richland County, Case No. 11CA87                                           2
    {¶4}   Even had Petitioner properly filed this cause, we would not find the
    issuance of a writ of mandamus to be warranted.
    {¶5}   For a writ of mandamus to issue, the relator must have a clear legal right
    to the relief prayed for, the respondents must be under a clear legal duty to
    perform the requested act, and relator must have no plain and adequate remedy
    in the ordinary course of law. State, ex rel. Berger, v. McMonagle, 
    6 Ohio St.3d 28
    , 
    451 N.E.2d 225
     (1983).
    {¶6}   The Supreme Court has held, “[n]either procedendo nor mandamus will
    compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed. State ex rel.
    Grove v. Nadel (1998), 
    84 Ohio St.3d 252
    , 253, 
    703 N.E.2d 304
    , 305.” State ex
    rel. Kreps v. Christiansen, 
    88 Ohio St.3d 313
    , 318, 2000-Ohio335, 
    725 N.E.2d 663
    , 668.
    {¶7}   Because the relief requested in the motion has been obtained, a ruling on
    the motion pending in the trial court, we find the request for writ of mandamus to
    be moot.
    Richland County, Case No. 11CA87                                          3
    {¶8} For this reason, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is granted. The petition for
    a writ of mandamus is dismissed.
    By: Delaney, P.J.
    Wise, J. and
    Edwards, J. concur
    ____________________________
    HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
    ____________________________
    HON. JOHN W. WISE
    ____________________________
    HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    MOISES RAMIREZ                       :     CASE NO. 11CA87
    :
    Petitioner                    :
    :
    -vs-                                 :     JUDGMENT ENTRY
    :
    RICHLAND COUNTY COMMON               :
    PLEAS COURT                          :
    :
    Respondent                    :
    For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, this
    cause is dismissed.
    Costs taxed to Petitioner.
    ______________________________
    HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
    ______________________________
    HON. JOHN W. WISE
    ______________________________
    HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11CA87

Citation Numbers: 2012 Ohio 661

Judges: Delaney

Filed Date: 2/7/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014