.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
CHARLES A. MITCHELL : JUDGES:
: Hon., Sheila G. Farmer, P.J.
Petitioner : Hon., John W. Wise, J.
: Hon., Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs- :
:
COMMON PLEAS COURT : Case No. CT2015-0049
JUDGE MARK C. FLEEGLE
:
Respondent : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: PETITION FOR
WRIT OF PROCEDENDO
JUDGMENT: DISMISSED
DATE OF JUDGMENT: August 2, 2016
APPEARANCES:
For Respondent For Relator
Gerald V. Anderson, II #0092567 Charles A. Mitchell, Pro Se
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Ohio Inmate I.D. No. 588-633
Muskingum County, Ohio 16759 Snake Hollow Road
27 North Fifth Street, P.O. Box 189 Nelsonville, Ohio 45764
Zanesville, Ohio 43701
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Relator, Charles A. Mitchell, has filed a Petition for Writ of Procedendo.
Relator requests Respondent be ordered to rule on a motion filed in the trial court on May
15, 2015 requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law. On October 5, 2015
Respondent ruled upon the motion. Relator has also pursued an appeal from the October
5, 2015 entry.
{¶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),
. 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,
(1937).
{¶3} The Supreme Court has also 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,
(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.
By Delaney, J.
Farmer, P.J. and
Wise, J. concur.
