State ex rel. Jennings v. Montgomery , 2012 Ohio 3088 ( 2012 )

[Cite as State ex rel. Jennings v. Montgomery, 2012-Ohio-3088.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 98222
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.,
TALBERT JENNINGS
RELATOR
vs.
K.J. MONTGOMERY, AS JUDGE OF,
ETC.
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
COMPLAINT DISMISSED
Writ of Mandamus
Motion No. 454597
Order No. 456022
RELEASE DATE: July 2, 2012
FOR RELATOR
Talbert Jennings, pro se
3960 Rosemond Rd.
Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44121
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
William M. Ondrey Gruber, Interim Director of Law
C. Randolph Keller
Chief Prosecutor/Assistant Director of Law
City of Shaker Heights
3400 Lee Road
Shaker Heights, Ohio 44120
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶1} Talbert Jennings has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Jennings
seeks the following: (1) Judge K.J. Montgomery be ordered to release and return a $525
cash bond; and (2) the declaration that “the Shaker Heights Municipal Court’s bond form
[is] null and void based on it being vague and ambiguous so that it cannot continue to be
used against literacy challenged individuals, including [Jennings] who did not fully
comprehend it.” Judge Montgomery has filed a motion to dismiss, which we grant for
the following reasons.
{¶2} On December 5, 2011, Jennings posted a cash bond in the amount of $525
with the Shaker Heights Municipal Court in order to insure the appearance of his
granddaughter, Lashai Yvonne Maul Jennings, in Univ. Hts. v. Jennings, Shaker Heights
Municipal Court Case No. 11TRD04249. On December 13, 2011, Lashai Jennings
entered a plea of no contest and was found guilty of a traffic offense and contempt. The
bond was then applied toward her fines and costs.
{¶3} Through his complaint for a writ of mandamus, Jennings argues that his
failure to fully comprehend and understand that the posted bond could be employed to
satisfy any fine or costs on behalf of Lashai Jennings, requires the return of the full
amount of the bond. In addition, Jennings seeks a declaration that the language
contained within the application form associated with the bond posted on behalf of Lashai
Jennings, which permits the “use of said bond to pay any fines and costs per Ohio
Revised Code Section 2937.40(B),” is void and ambiguous and prevents its future
application.
{¶4} Initially, we find that Jennings’s complaint for a writ of mandamus is
procedurally defective. Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) provides that a complaint for an
extraordinary writ must be supported by a sworn affidavit that specifies the details of
Jennings’s claim. A simple statement that verifies that Jennings has reviewed the
complaint and that the contents are true and accurate does not satisfy the mandatory
requirement under Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). State ex rel. Jones v. McGinty, 8th Dist. No.
92602, 2009-Ohio-1258; State ex rel. Mayes v. Ambrose, 8th Dist. No. 91980,
2009-Ohio-25; James v. Callahan, 8th Dist. No. 89654, 2007-Ohio-2237.
{¶5} In addition, Jennings’s complaint for a writ of mandamus is moot.
Attached to the motion to dismiss is a copy of a judgment entry journalized on April 19,
2012, which demonstrates that the bond posted by Jennings, in the total amount of $525,
was ordered returned. See State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common
Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 1996-Ohio-117, 658 N.E.2d 723; State ex rel. Gantt v.
Coleman, 6 Ohio St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163 (1983).
{¶6} Finally, Jennings, through his complaint for mandamus, seeks to prevent the
Shaker Heights Municipal Court from using posted bond monies to pay for costs and
fines on the basis that the language contained within the bond application form is vague
and void. However, mandamus may not be employed when the real objective is a
declaratory judgment and a prohibitory injunction. Thus, the complaint does not state a
cause of action in mandamus and must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. State ex
rel. Beane v. Dayton, 112 Ohio St.3d 553, 2007-Ohio-811, 862 N.E.2d 97; State ex rel.
Phillips v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections, 93 Ohio St.3d 535, 757 N.E.2d 319 (2001); State
ex rel. Grendell v. Davidson, 86 Ohio St.3d 629, 716 N.E.2d 704 (1999).
{¶7} Accordingly, we grant Judge Montgomery’s motion to dismiss. Jennings
to pay costs. The court directs the clerk of court to serve notice of this judgment and its
date of entry upon all parties as required by Civ.R. 58(B).
{¶8} Complaint dismissed.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., CONCUR