Rucker v. State

[Cite as Rucker v. State, 

.]

                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                     ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                            PORTAGE COUNTY

MARIAH DOMINIQUE RUCKER,                          CASE NO. 2025-P-0001

                 Relator,
                                                  Original Action for Writs of Mandamus and
        - vs -                                    Prohibition

THE STATE OF OHIO,

                 Respondent.


                                            MEMORANDUM
                                              OPINION

                                     Decided: February 10, 2025
                                       Judgment: Dismissed


Mariah Dominique Rucker, pro se, 3328 Euclid Avenue, Apt. 404, Cleveland, OH 44115
(Relator).

Connie J. Lewandowski, Portage County Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street,
Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Respondent).


MATT LYNCH, J.

        {¶1}     Mariah Dominique Rucker, pro se, filed the following motions in this court

on January 22, 2025: motion for leave “to file the enclosed writs,” motion for writ of

mandamus, motion for writ of prohibition, motion for immediate stay, motion for change

of venue, motion for expedited consideration, and motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

Rucker also filed additional motions under this case number.

        {¶2}     “The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, as supplemented herein, shall govern

procedure in original actions filed in this court.” Loc.App.R. 1(B). Under Civ.R. 3(A), “[a]

civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court, if service is obtained within

one year from such filing upon a named defendant,” and an original action in this court
“shall be instituted by the filing of a complaint or petition,” Loc.App.R. 101(A). A motion

for extraordinary relief is insufficient to commence an original action. State ex rel. Simms

v. Sutula, 

 (1998) (affirming the dismissal of a motion for a writ of

procedendo).

       {¶3}    Accordingly, we deny Rucker’s motion for leave, motion for writ of

mandamus, and motion for writ of prohibition. And because there is no pending action

before this court, we deny all other pending motions.

       {¶4}    This cause is sua sponte dismissed for failure to properly invoke the original

jurisdiction of this court. See, e.g., Snype v. Oswick, 

 (11th Dist.) (sua

sponte dismissing an action initiated by a filing that failed to invoke either the appellate or

original jurisdiction of the court); see also State ex rel. Lehman v. Poulos, 

 (1999) (sua sponte dismissing an action that did not meet the court’s requirements

for instituting an original action).

       {¶5}    Rucker, should she wish to proceed, must commence an original action for

extraordinary relief by filing a complaint or petition under Civ.R. 3(A) and Loc.App.R.

101(A).

       {¶6}    Cause dismissed.


JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,

concur.




                                              2

Case No. 2025-P-0001