Bey v. State
This text of 2017 Ohio 404 (Bey v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as Bey v. State, 2017-Ohio-404.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
Michael Roscoe Doles Bey Court of Appeals No. L-16-1088
Appellant Trial Court No. CI0201601250
v.
State of Ohio, Bureau of Motor Vehicles DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellee Decided: February 3, 2017
*****
Michael Roscoe Doles Bey, pro se.
Michael Dewine, Ohio Attorney General, Christie Limbert and Trista M. Turley, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
SINGER, J.
{¶ 1} We sua sponte place this appeal on the accelerated calendar pursuant to 6th
Dist.Loc.App.R. 12(A). See App.R. 11.1(E). Introduction
{¶ 2} Appellant, Michael Roscoe Doles Bey, appeals the March 31, 2016
judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his claim against
appellee, the Ohio Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Motor Vehicles (“BMV”).
Finding the matter moot, we affirm.
Assignments of Error
{¶ 3} Appellant sets forth the following statements as his assignments of error:
1. Failure to Comply with R.C. 2731.04
R.C. 2731 requires that an application for a writ of mandamus “must be by
petition, in the name of the state of the relation of the person applying, and
verified by affidavit.” See Trial Court’s Order and Judgment Entry, Page 2; ¶ 4.
2. Matter is Moot
The Court cannot compel the BMV to issue a driver’s license that it has
already issued. See Trial Court’s Order and Judgment Entry, Page 3; ¶ 3.
3. Failure to State a Claim
“A claim may dismissed, pursuant to Civ. R, 12 (B)(6), for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.” See Trial Court’s Order and Judgment
Entry, Page 4; ¶ 2.
4. No “justiciable controversy” exists when the action has been rendered
moot by subsequent developments. Therefore, he (Doles) no longer has
“standing”. See Trial Court’s: Order and Judgment Entry, Page 6; ¶ 2.
2. 5. Doles’s claim is no longer justiciable because he received a driver’s
license with the name “Bey” included on it. See Trial Court’s Order and Judgment
Entry, Page 6; ¶ 2.
Factual Background
{¶ 4} Appellant is a practicing member of The Moorish Science Temple of
America, Inc. The Moorish Temple is lawfully chartered as an incorporated organization
and religious corporation under the laws of the state of Illinois.
{¶ 5} Appellant, as a member of the Moorish Temple, affixes “Bey” at the end of
his birth name to demonstrate his religious birthright. According to appellant, affixing
“Bey” or “El” manifests the custom, tradition and culture of his Moorish forefathers.
{¶ 6} On January 12, 2016, appellant attempted to renew his driver’s license with
appellee, the Ohio BMV. The BMV office denied his renewal application because “Bey”
had not been lawfully recognized as appellant’s surname. Appellant had a social security
card, but it did not reflect “Bey” because appellant had not yet applied for it.
{¶ 7} Appellant attempted to renew his license at three other BMV offices within
Lucas County. After the unsuccessful attempts, appellant was told he had six months to
resolve the issue by seeking a court-ordered name change. Appellant found this request
to be against his religion because, according to Moorish Temple tenants, he did not
change his name to “Bey,” but merely corrected it through proclaiming that which he
believes he always was: a person of Moorish decent returning to the “Ancient Creed and
Principles.”
3. {¶ 8} On January 25, 2016, appellant filed a complaint seeking a writ of
mandamus to compel the BMV to issue his license with the name “Bey” affixed.
Attached to the complaint was appellant’s birth certificate, Moorish documents, a copy of
appellant’s previous license which reflected the name “Bey,”and an application for a
social security card which also reflected the name “Bey.”
{¶ 9} Appellant’s driver’s license was renewed on February 22, 2016. Appellant
did not have to seek a name change, and the license renewal seemed arbitrarily granted.
{¶ 10} On February 24, 2016, appellee moved the court to dismiss the complaint
on grounds that the writ was incorrectly captioned, appellant failed to state a claim, and
that the matter was moot because appellant already received his driver’s license as
requested.
{¶ 11} In response to the motion, appellant broadened his sought redress to
include a general attack against the BMV, thereby requesting that the court accept his
complaint as a “form of a class action.” Specifically, appellant sought a “class action
judgment to all governmental agencies representing the Great State of Ohio to cease and
desist all practices that undermines and impedes (sic) the free exercise of nationality and
religious freedom by the members of the Moorish Science Temple of America, Inc.
residing in the Great State of Ohio.”
{¶ 12} On March 31, 2016, the trial court dismissed appellant’s complaint
because, among others, the driver’s license issue was deemed moot. Appellant timely
appeals from this judgment.
4. Law
{¶ 13} R.C. 2731.01 states that, “[m]andamus is a writ, issued in the name of the
state to an inferior tribunal, a corporation, board, or person, commanding the performance
of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or
station.”
{¶ 14} The writ is extraordinary and, therefore, is only available where the court
finds that the relator “has a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, that the respondent is
under a clear legal duty to perform the requested act, and that relator has no plain and
adequate remedy at law.” State ex rel. Westchester Estates, Inc. v. Bacon, 61 Ohio St.2d
42, 399 N.E.2d 81 (1980), paragraph one of syllabus.
Analysis
{¶ 15} Appellant argues the trial court erred in finding the matter moot because,
although he received his driver’s license, the BMV still has unconstitutional practices and
policies. Appellee contends dismissal was appropriate because appellant has already
received his driver’s license reflecting “Bey” as requested.
{¶ 16} “A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel an act already performed.”
Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 279, 658
N.E.2d 723 (1996). “Stated otherwise, the writ will not lie in order to secure a
determination of issues which have become moot [.]” State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman, 6
Ohio St.3d 5, 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163 (1983).
5. {¶ 17} Here, appellant received his driver’s license on February 22, 2016.
Because the license was issued during the pendency of his petition for mandamus, the
trial court did not err in finding he no longer had a justiciable claim against the BMV.
{¶ 18} Accordingly, it was not error to deny the extraordinary writ and on this
basis alone mandamus will not issue. We find appellant’s assignment of error not well
taken.
Conclusion
{¶ 19} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay costs pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2017 Ohio 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bey-v-state-ohioctapp-2017.