Goodykoontz v. Moore

2025 Ohio 1340

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 11, 2025
• Docket: 114784
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Goodykoontz v. Moore, 2025-Ohio-1340.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

DAVID GOODYKOONTZ, :

Relator, : No. 114784 v. :

JUDGE LAUREN C. MOORE, :

Respondent. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED DATED: April 11, 2025

Writ of Procedendo Order No. 582746 Motion No. 581924

Appearances:

David Goodykoontz, pro se.

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent. MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J.:

David Goodykoontz, the relator, has filed a complaint for a writ of

procedendo. Goodykoontz seeks an order from this court that requires Judge

Lauren C. Moore, the respondent, to render rulings in State v. Goodykoontz,

Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-19-641800-A and CR-20-647818-A, with regard to motions

for leave to file motions for new trial.1 Judge Moore has filed a motion for summary

judgment that is granted for the following reasons.

Initially, we find that Goodykoontz’s complaint for a writ of

procedendo fails to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C). Specifically, Goodykoontz

failed to file an affidavit of prior civil actions as required by R.C. 2969.25(A). In

addition, Goodykoontz has failed to provide a certified copy of the institutional

cashier’s statement, where he is incarcerated, setting forth the balance in this inmate

account as required by R.C. 2969.25(C). The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are

mandatory, and the failure to provide this court with an affidavit of prior civil actions

and a certified institutional cashier’s statement requires dismissal of Goodykoontz’s

complaint for mandamus. State ex rel. Washington v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 87

Ohio St.3d 258 (1999); State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421

(1998). The failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C) cannot be cured by

1Pursuant to Civ.R. 25(D)(1), Judge Lauren C. Moore is substituted for Judge Kathleen

Ann Sutula who was originally assigned to State v. Goodykoontz, Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR- 19-641800-A and CR-20-647818-A, and has since retired from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. amendment or later filings. State ex rel. Watkins v. Andrews, 2015-Ohio-1100;

Fuqua v. Williams, 2003-Ohio-5533.

Also, before this court will issue a writ of procedendo, Goodykoontz

must show a clear legal right to require Judge Moore to proceed, a clear legal duty

on the part of Judge Moore to proceed, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the

ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Poulton v. Cottrill, 2016-Ohio-5789; State

ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461 (1995).

Attached to the motion for summary judgment is the sworn affidavit of the Manager

of the Criminal Division of the Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts wherein it is

established that no motion for leave to file a motion for new trial was filed by

Goodykoontz in State v. Goodykoontz, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-19-641800-A or CR-

20-647818-A. Goodykoontz has failed to establish that he is entitled to a writ of

procedendo.

Finally, a writ of procedendo will not issue to compel a vain act. State

ex rel. Morenz v. Kerr, 2004-Ohio-6208; State ex rel. Pedraza v. Kimbler,

2021-Ohio-993 (9th Dist.). If this court were to grant a writ of procedendo to order

Judge Moore to rule on nonexistent motions for a new trial, it would constitute a

vain act. State ex rel. Garnett v. Lyons, 44 Ohio St.2d 125 (1975); Lloyd v. Wiest,

2023-Ohio-869 (9th Dist.).

Accordingly, we grant Judge Moore’s motion for summary judgment.

Costs to Goodykoontz. The court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties with notice of this judgment, and the date of entry upon the journal as required by

Civ.R. 58(B).

Writ denied.

_________________________________ MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, PRESIDING JUDGE

LISA B. FORBES, J., and MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR