In re Williams v. Pianka
This text of 2012 Ohio 5518 (In re Williams v. Pianka) 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 In re Williams v. Pianka, 2012-Ohio-5518.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98760
IN RE: LAWRENCE WILLIAMS RELATOR
vs.
RAYMOND PIANKA, AS JUDGE, ETC. RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED
Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 458342 Order No. 460163
RELEASE DATE: November 28, 2012 FOR RELATOR
Lawrence Williams, pro se 17701 Rookwood Circle Cleveland, Ohio 44112
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
Barbara A. Langhenry Interim Director of Law
By: Joseph F. Scott Chief Assistant Director of Law City of Cleveland City Hall, Room 106 601 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1077 EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶1} Lawrence Williams has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Williams
seeks an order from this court that requires Judge Raymond Pianka to issue a ruling with
regard to an “emergency motion for temporary restraining order, injunction and stay of
eviction” as filed in Cleveland M.C. No. 2012-CVG-010936. Judge Pianka has filed a
motion for summary judgment, which is granted for the following reasons.
{¶2} Initially, we find that Williams’ complaint for a writ of mandamus is
defective, because it is improperly captioned. The complaint for a writ of mandamus
must be brought in the name of the state on relation of the person applying. R.C.
2731.04; Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen Cty., 173 Ohio St. 226, 181 N.E.2d
270 (1962); Gannon v. Gallagher, 145 Ohio St. 170, 60 N.E.2d 666 (1945).
{¶3} Finally, Williams’ request for a writ of mandamus is moot. The underlying
action, forcible entry and detainer, has concluded and Williams has been evicted from the
residential property in question. See affidavit of Judge Pianka attached to the motion for
summary judgment. State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas,
74 Ohio St.3d 278, 658 N.E.2d 723 (1996); State ex rel. Snider v. Stapleton, 65 Ohio
St.3d 40, 600 N.E.2d 240 (1992); State ex rel. Richard v. Wells, 64 Ohio St.3d 76, 591
N.E.2d 1240 (1992); State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman, 6 Ohio St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163
(1983). {¶4} Accordingly, we grant Judge Pianka’s motion for summary judgment.
Williams to pay costs. The court directs the clerk of court to serve all parties with notice
of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).
{¶5} Writ denied.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2012 Ohio 5518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-williams-v-pianka-ohioctapp-2012.