State ex rel. Davis v. Janas , 2019 Ohio 3134 ( 2019 )

[Cite as State ex rel. Davis v. Janas, 2019-Ohio-3134.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF LORAIN )
STATE OF OHIO EX REL. IAN DAVIS
C.A. No. 19CA011500
Relator
v.
JUDGE THOMAS W. JANAS ORIGINAL ACTION IN
MANDAMUS
Respondent
Dated: August 5, 2019
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Ian Davis has petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus to compel
Respondent, Judge Thomas Janas, to vacate a nunc pro tunc entry filed on September 9,
1999, in Lorain County Common Pleas case number 93CR043666. Judge Janas has
moved to dismiss. Mr. Davis filed a response to the motion to dismiss along with a motion
for additional time to file the response. That motion is granted, and the response is
deemed timely filed. For the following reasons, this Court grants Judge Janas’ motion to
dismiss.
{¶2} “For a writ of mandamus to issue, a relator must demonstrate that (1) the
relator has a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, (2) respondent is under a
corresponding clear legal duty to perform the requested acts, and (3) relator has no plain
and adequate legal remedy.” State ex rel. Serv. Emp. Internatl. Union, Dist. 925 v. State
Emp. Relations Bd., 81 Ohio St. 3d 173, 176 (1998). The petitioner must demonstrate all
C.A. No. 19CA011500
Page 2 of 3
three elements in order for this Court to grant the writ of mandamus. “A court can dismiss
a mandamus action under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted if, after all factual allegations of the complaint are presumed true and all
reasonable inferences are made in relator’s favor, it appears beyond doubt that he can
prove no set of facts entitling him to the requested writ of mandamus.” State ex rel.
Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St. 3d 409, 2006-Ohio-5858, ¶ 9.
{¶3} Mr. Davis’ complaint alleges that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus
compelling Judge Janas to vacate the September 1999 order because he abused his
discretion in entering it.
{¶4} With respect to alleged legal errors, it is well-established that mandamus
cannot be used as a substitute for appeal to challenge a trial court’s actions. State ex rel.
Richfield v. Laria, 138 Ohio St. 3d 168, 2014-Ohio-243, ¶ 11. Appeal from an adverse
judgment constitutes an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel.
Caskey v. Gano, 135 Ohio St. 3d 175, 2013-Ohio-71, ¶ 5. This remains the case even when
“pursuing such process would encompass more delay and inconvenience than seeking a
writ of mandamus.” State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 86 Ohio
St.3d 451, 521 (1999), quoting State ex rel. Zupancic v. Limbach, 58 Ohio St. 3d 130, 134
fn.2 (1991). Mr. Davis could have raised his claims in an appeal from that order. See,
e.g., State ex rel. Plant v. Cosgrove, 119 Ohio St. 3d 264, 2008-Ohio-3838, ¶ 5. To the
extent he claims that he just learned of this order, he could seek leave to appeal. He cannot,
however, seek mandamus relief as a substitute to appeal of this order.
C.A. No. 19CA011500
Page 3 of 3
{¶5} Even if all of the factual allegations of Mr. Davis’s complaint are presumed
true, and all reasonable inferences are made in his favor, it appears beyond doubt that Mr.
Davis cannot demonstrate that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus because of the
existence of adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law. Judge Janas’ motion to
dismiss is, therefore, granted.
{¶6} The motion to dismiss is granted, and this case is dismissed. Costs are taxed
to Mr. Davis. The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default
notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See Civ.R. 58.
THOMAS A. TEODOSIO
FOR THE COURT
CARR, J.
SCHAFER, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
IAN R. DAVIS, Pro se, Relator.
DENNIS P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and CARA M. FINNEGAN, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for Respondent.