Patrick-Bey v. Cleveland Muni. Court , 2014 Ohio 1249 ( 2014 )

[Cite as Patrick-Bey v. Cleveland Muni. Court, 2014-Ohio-1249.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 100974
CLIFFORD PATRICK-BEY
RELATOR
vs.
CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL COURT
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
DISMISSED
Writ of Mandamus
Order No. 472891
RELEASE DATE: March 24, 2014
FOR RELATOR
Clifford Patrick-Bey, Etc., pro se
13413 Ashburton Road
Cleveland, Ohio 44110
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
Barbara A. Langhenry
Law Director
City of Cleveland
BY: Jonathan P. Barra
Assistant Law Director
601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 106
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1077
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶1} Clifford Patrick-Bey has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus.
Patrick-Bey seeks a writ of mandamus in order to compel the Cleveland Municipal Court
to “enforce the [d]efault [j]udgment filed on August 26, 2013, as the [w]rit of discovery
submitted was not honored.” Sua sponte, we dismiss the complaint for a writ of
mandamus because it is procedurally defective and fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
{¶2} Initially, we find that the complaint for a writ of mandamus is improperly
captioned. A complaint for a writ of mandamus must be brought in the name of the state,
on relation of the person applying. The failure of Patrick-Bey to properly caption his
complaint warrants dismissal. Blankenship v. Blackwell, 103 Ohio St.3d 567,
2004-Ohio-5596, 817 N.E.2d 382; Maloney v. Allen Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 173
Ohio St. 226, 181 N.E.2d 270 (1962).
{¶3} Patrick-Bey has also failed to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a), which
mandates that the complaint must be supported by an affidavit that specifies the details of
the claim. The failure of Patrick-Bey to comply with the supporting affidavit
requirement of Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) warrants dismissal of the complaint for a writ of
mandamus. State ex rel. Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d
124, 2009-Ohio-4688, 914 N.E.2d 402; Turner v. Russo, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87852,
2006-Ohio-4490; Barry v. Galvin, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 85990, 2005-Ohio-2324.
{¶4} Finally, Patrick-Bey fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
because he obviously cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint. Mandamus
may be employed to compel a court to exercise judgment or discharge a function.
Mandamus may not be employed to control judicial discretion, such as ordering a court to
grant a default judgment, even if that discretion is grossly abused. State ex rel. Ney v.
Niehaus, 33 Ohio St.3d 118, 515 N.E.2d 914 (1987). Furthermore, mandamus is not a
substitute for an appeal. State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 228
N.E.2d 631 (1967). The failure to state a claim, upon which relief can be granted,
warrants a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint for a writ of mandamus. State ex rel.
Peeples v. Anderson, 73 Ohio St.3d 559, 1995-Ohio-335, 653 N.E.2d 371.
{¶5} Accordingly, we sua sponte dismiss the complaint for a writ of mandamus.
Costs to Patrick-Bey. The court directs the clerk of court to serve all parties with notice
of this judgment and the date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).
{¶6} Complaint dismissed.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J., and
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., CONCUR