1998 OHIO 644 - State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at

81 Ohio St.3d 1444

.]




     THE STATE EX REL. SIMMS, APPELLANT, v. SUTULA, JUDGE, APPELLEE.
              [Cite as State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula,

1998-Ohio-644

.]
Procedendo—Motion for writ of procedendo to compel court of common pleas
        judge to determine relator’s pending motion for production of transcripts
        and other documents—Motion dismissed, when—Original actions for
        extraordinary relief must be commenced by filing a complaint or petition
        rather than a motion.
   (No. 97-1812—Submitted December 2, 1997—Decided February 18, 1998.)
       APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 72896.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} In July 1997, appellant, Timothy Simms, Jr., filed a motion in the
Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County for a writ of procedendo to compel
appellee, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Kathleen Sutula, to
determine Simms’s pending motion for production of transcripts and other
documents. The court of appeals dismissed the motion.
        {¶ 2} The cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.
                                  __________________
        Timothy Simms, Jr., pro se.
                                  __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 3} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. The court of appeals
correctly held that original actions for extraordinary relief, e.g., a writ of
procedendo, must be commenced by filing a complaint or petition rather than a
motion. Civ.R. 3(A) (“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the
court ….”); Loc.App.R. 8(B)(1) of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Appellate
District (“These original actions shall be instituted by the filing of a verified
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




complaint ….”); cf. Myles v. Wyatt (1991),

62 Ohio St.3d 191

580 N.E.2d 1080, 1081

, where we affirmed the dismissal of a motion for a writ of mandamus.
                                                              Judgment affirmed.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                             __________________




                                        2