State ex rel. Jefferson v. Goulding

[Cite as State ex rel. Jefferson v. Goulding, 2022-Ohio-344.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY

State, ex rel. Tanelle Jefferson Court of Appeals No. L-21-1225

Relator v. Judge Michael Goulding DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Respondent Decided: February 1, 2022

*****

Tanelle Jefferson, Pro se.

Julia R. Bates, Lucas Count Prosecuting Attorney, and Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Repondent.

*****

OSOWIK, J.

{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on respondent Hon. Judge Michael Goulding’s January 10, 2022 motion to dismiss relator Tanelle Jefferson’s petition for writ of procedendo. In his petition, relator asked this court to order respondent to rule on his previously-filed motion for judicial release. Relator alleges that respondent failed to rule on his motion within time period prescribed in R.C. 2929.20. On December 30, 2021, we granted an alternative writ ordering respondent to either rule on appellant’s motion, or show cause why he has no clear duty to do so by filing either an answer to relator’s complaint or a motion to dismiss.

{¶ 2} On January 10, 2022, respondent filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing that no relief could be granted because he had already performed the requested action—that is, he denied relator’s motion. Respondent included a copy of the order resolving relator’s motion for judicial release to his motion to dismiss.

{¶ 3} “Procedendo will not compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.” State ex rel. Bechtel v. Cornachio, 164 Ohio St.3d 579, 2021-Ohio-1121, 174 N.E.3d 744, ¶ 9, citing State ex rel. Roberts v. Marsh, 159 Ohio St.3d 457, 2020-Ohio-1540, 151 N.E.3d 625, ¶ 6. Where respondent performs the action requested in a petition for writ of procedendo, the petition is subject to dismissal as moot. State ex rel. Ames v. Pokorny, 164 Ohio St.3d 538, 2021-Ohio-2070, 173 N.E.3d 1208, ¶ 7. Here, respondent’s motion to dismiss includes the order showing that the relief relator requests in his petition has been provided. As a result, this action has been rendered moot.

{¶ 4} IT IS THEREFORE 2.

{¶ 5} ORDERED that respondent’s motion to dismiss is hereby granted; it is further

{¶ 6} ORDERED that relator’s petition for writ of procedendo is hereby dismissed as moot; and it is further

{¶ 7} ORDERED that the costs of this action are assessed to respondent.

{¶ 8} The clerk is directed to immediately serve upon the parties, within three days, a copy of this decision in a manner prescribed by Civ.R. 5(B).

{¶ 9} It is so ordered.

Writ denied.

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. ____________________________ JUDGE Thomas J. Osowik, J. ____________________________ Gene A. Zmuda, J. JUDGE CONCUR. ____________________________ JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

3.