State ex rel. Crenshaw v. McMonagle

[Cite as State ex rel. Crenshaw v. McMonagle, 2022-Ohio-1508.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE EX REL., MARIAH S. :
CRENSHAW,
Relator, :
No. 111207
v. :
JUDGE RICHARD MCMONAGLE, :
Respondent. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: COMPLAINT DISMISSED
DATED: May 2, 2022
Writ of Mandamus
Motion No. 553250
Order No. 554277
Appearances:
Mariah S. Crenshaw, pro se.
Flowers & Grube, Paul W. Flowers, Louis E. Grube, and
Melissa A. Ghrist, for respondent.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:
Relator, Mariah S. Crenshaw, has filed a complaint for a writ of
mandamus. Crenshaw seeks an order from this court that requires respondent,
Judge Richard McMonagle, to conduct a case-management hearing in In re:
Affidavit of Removal of Pros. Atty., Cuyahoga C.P. No. SD-21-78177. Judge
McMonagle has filed a motion to dismiss. Crenshaw has not filed a brief in
opposition to the motion to dismiss. For the following reasons, we grant the motion
to dismiss.
This court possesses original jurisdiction over a complaint for a writ
of mandamus pursuant to Article IV, Section 3(B)(1) of the Ohio Constitution, R.C.
2731.01 and 2731.02. The requisites for mandamus are well established: 1)
Crenshaw must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief; 2) Crenshaw must
establish that Judge McMonagle possesses a clear legal duty to perform the
requested relief; and 3) Crenshaw possesses no other adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus, 33 Ohio St.3d 118, 515
N.E.2d 914 (1987). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is to be exercised
with great caution and granted only when the right is absolutely clear. Mandamus
should not issue in doubtful cases. State ex rel. Taylor v. Glasser, 50 Ohio St.2d
165, 364 N.E.2d 1 (1977); State ex rel. Shafer v. Ohio Turnpike Comm., 159 Ohio St.
581, 113 N.E.2d 14 (1953); State ex rel. Connole v. Cleveland Bd. of Edn., 87 Ohio
App.3d 43, 621 N.E.2d 850 (8th Dist.1993).
A trial court possesses the inherent authority and discretion to control
its own docket. Bayview Loan Servicing, L.L.C. v. St. Cyr, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
104655, 2017-Ohio-2758; 6750 BMS, L.L.C. v. Drentlau, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
103409, 2016-Ohio-1385. In addition, mandamus may not be employed to control
judicial discretion, even if that judicial discretion is grossly abused. Bluford v.
Gallagher, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 82896, 2003-Ohio-4199.
A case-management hearing clearly falls under the penumbra of
docket control. Since Judge McMonagle is under no clear legal duty to conduct a
case-management hearing, relief in mandamus is not available to compel Judge
McMonagle to hold a case-management hearing. King v. Divoky, 9th Dist. Summit
No. C.A. 29769, 2021-Ohio-1712; Holsopple v. Holsopple, 9th Dist. Summit No. C.A.
29441, 2020-Ohio-1210.
Accordingly, we grant Judge McMonagle’s motion to dismiss. Costs
to Crenshaw. The court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties with notice of
this judgment and the date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).
Complaint dismissed.
__________________________
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, A.J., and
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, J., CONCUR