Spencer v. State

[Cite as Spencer v. State, 2020-Ohio-235.]
COURT OF APPEALS
FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THOMAS J. SPENCER JUDGES:
Hon. John W. Wise, P. J.
Relator Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-
Case No. 2020 CA 00002
STATE OF OHIO, et al.
Respondents OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. 2019 CR 00090
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 24, 2020
APPEARANCES:
For Relator For Respondent
THOMAS J. SPENCER KYLE WITT
PRO SE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
NOBLE CORR. INSTITUTION 239 West Main Street
15708 McConnelsville Road Suite 101
Caldwell, Ohio 43724 Lancaster, Ohio 43130
Fairfield County, Case No. 2020 CA 00002 2
Wise, P. J.
{¶1} This matter is before the Court upon Thomas J. Spencer’s Writ of
Mandamus. Along with his writ, Mr. Spencer also filed the following documents: “Cover
Sheet;” “Request for Leave of Trial Court to Admit as Ex Parte Communication This
Document;” and two documents titled, “Complaint, and Request of Review, to Be
Submitted on, Courts Committee on Complaints and Policy Compliance.” It appears Mr.
Spencer’s Writ of Mandamus pertains to a criminal case that is currently pending in the
Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas under Case No. 2019 CR 00090.
{¶2} Although numerous deficiencies exist with Mr. Spencer’s writ, the most
glaring deficiencies that require sua sponte dismissal of his writ pertain to the caption. On
the document titled “Writ of Mandamus,” he captioned himself, individually, as “Plaintiff”
and the State of Ohio as “Defendant.” Mr. Spencer also included the Fairfield County
Prosecutor, Kyle Witt, as a “Defendant.” R.C. 2731.04 requires an application for a writ of
mandamus must be by petition, in the name of the state on the relation of the person
applying.
{¶3} Also, under Civ.R. 10(A) the caption of a complaint must “include the names
and addresses of all the parties.” Mr. Spencer included no addresses for the parties
identified in the caption of the documents and this failure alone also warrants sua sponte
dismissal of the writ. See Hill v. Kelly, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2011-T-0094, 2011-Ohio-
6341, ¶ 8.
{¶4} The Ohio Supreme Court held in Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas of
Allen Cty., 173 Ohio St. 226, 227, 181 N.E.2d 270 (1962), the failure to properly caption
a mandamus action is sufficient grounds for denying the writ and dismissing the petition.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2020 CA 00002 3
Further, “[a] court may sua sponte dismiss a petition for an extraordinary writ when it is
improperly captioned.” State v. Henton, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2014-A-0045, 2014-
Ohio-5311, ¶ 2, citing Snype v. Enlow, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2011-P-0096, 2012-Ohio-
1272, ¶ 4.
{¶5} The Writ of Mandamus under consideration here is improperly captioned
because it is not on relation of Mr. Spencer and lacks addresses for the parties identified
in the caption. For these reasons, we sua sponte dismiss Mr. Spencer’s writ and his two
Complaints.
{¶6} WRIT AND COMPLAINTS DISMISSED.
{¶7} COSTS TO RELATOR.
{¶8} IT IS SO ORDERED.
By: Wise, P. J.
Delaney, J., and
Baldwin, J., concur.
JWW/d 0117
Fairfield County, Case No. 2020 CA 00002 4