State ex rel. Akram v. Berens

[Cite as State ex rel. Akram v. Berens, 2016-Ohio-133.]
aCOURT OF APPEALS
FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., JUDGES:
ALEEM AKRAM Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
Relator Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs- Case No. 15-CA-62
JUDGE RICHARD E. BERENS
OPINION
Respondent
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Procedendo
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 13, 2016
APPEARANCES:
For Relator For Respondent
ALEEM AKRAM #676-949 No Appearance
Pickaway Correctional Institute
P.O. Box 209
Orient, Ohio 43146
Fairfield County, Case No. 15-CA-62 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Relator, Aleem Akram, has filed a Petition for Writ of Procedendo. Relator
requests Respondent be ordered to rule on a motion filed in the trial court on June 4,
2015. On December 10, 2015 Respondent ruled upon the motion.
{¶2} To be entitled to a writ of procedendo, “a relator must establish a clear
legal right to require the court to proceed, a clear legal duty on the part of the court to
proceed, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” Miley,
supra, at 65, citing State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas
(1995), 72 Ohio St. 3d 461, 462. The Supreme Court has noted, “The writ of procedendo
is merely an order from a court of superior jurisdiction to one of inferior jurisdiction to
proceed to judgment. It does not in any case attempt to control the inferior court as to
what that judgment should be.” State ex rel. Davey v. Owen, 133 Ohio St. 96, *106, 12
N.E.2d 144, * *149 (1937).
{¶3} The Supreme Court has held procedendo will not issue where the
requested relief has been obtained, “Neither procedendo nor mandamus will compel the
performance of a duty that has already been performed.” State ex rel. Kreps v.
Christiansen, 88 Ohio St. 3d 313, 318, 725 N.E.2d 663, 668 (Ohio, 2000).
{¶4} Because Respondent has issued a ruling on Relator’s motion, the request
for a writ of procedendo has become moot. For this reason, the Petition for Writ of
Procedendo is dismissed.
{¶5} PETITION DISMISSED.
{¶6} COSTS WAIVED.
Fairfield County, Case No. 15-CA-62 3
{¶7} IT IS SO ORDERED.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Farmer, J. and
Delaney, J. concur