State ex rel. Miller v. Saffold , 2017 Ohio 5751 ( 2017 )

[Cite as State ex rel. Miller v. Saffold, 2017-Ohio-5751.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 105715
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.
ROBERT MILLER
RELATOR
vs.
HONORABLE SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
WRIT DENIED
Writ of Mandamus
Motion No. 507075
Order No. 508114
RELEASE DATE: July 3, 2017
FOR RELATOR
Robert Miller, pro se
Inmate No. 542-127
Allen Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 4501
Lima, Ohio 45802
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
Michael C. O’Malley
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: James E. Moss
Assistant County Prosecutor
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
TIM McCORMACK, J.:
{¶1} On April 28, 2017, the relator, Robert Miller, commenced this mandamus action
against the respondent Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold to compel a ruling on a motion for
jail-time credit, which Miller filed on July 5, 2016, in the underlying case, State v. Miller,
Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-07-500918-A. On May 12, 2017, the respondent moved for summary
judgment on the grounds of mootness. Attached to the dispositive motion was a copy of a May
8, 2017 journal entry granting 126 days of jail-time credit in the underlying case. This
establishes that the relator has received his requested relief and that the action is, therefore, moot.
State ex rel. Corder v. Wilson, 68 Ohio App. 3d 567, 589 N.E.2d 113 (10th Dist.1991).
{¶2} Relator also did not comply with R.C. 2969.25©, which requires that an inmate file
a certified statement from his prison cashier setting forth the balance in his private account for
each of the preceding six months. This also is sufficient reason to deny the mandamus, deny
indigency status, and assess costs against the relator. State ex rel. Pamer v. Collier, 108 Ohio
St.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-1507, 844 N.E.2d 842; State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of
Common Pleas, 88 Ohio St. 3d 176, 2000-Ohio-285, 724 N.E.2d 420; and Hazel v. Knab, 130
Ohio St. 3d 22, 2011-Ohio-4608, 955 N.E.2d 378 — the defect may not be cured by subsequent
filings.
{¶3} Accordingly, the court grants the respondent’s motion for summary judgment and
denies the writ. Costs assessed against the relator. The clerk is directed to serve upon the
parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B).
{¶4} Writ denied.
TIM McCORMACK, JUDGE
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, A.J., and
LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR