R.C.H. v. Russo

2023 Ohio 4065
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 3, 2023
Docket113098
StatusPublished

This text of 2023 Ohio 4065 (R.C.H. v. Russo) 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.

Bluebook
R.C.H. v. Russo, 2023 Ohio 4065 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

[Cite as R.C.H. v. Russo, 2023-Ohio-4065.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

R.C.H., :

Relator, : No. 113098 v. :

JUDGE JOHN J. RUSSO, :

Respondent. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: COMPLAINT DISMISSED DATED: November 3, 2023

Writ of Procedendo Motion No. 569058 Order No. 569133

Appearances:

R.C.H., pro se.

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.:

On August 17, 2023, the relator, R.C.H. commenced this procedendo

action to compel the respondent judge to issue a final ruling on the relator’s motion for expungement of criminal record that he filed on April 6, 2023, in the underlying

case, State v. R.C.H., Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-12-568211-A.1 On October 30, 2023,

the respondent judge moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness.

Attached to the dispositive motion is a copy of the judge’s October 26, 2023

judgment entry in which the respondent noted that he had heard the application for

expungement and granted the motion. This journal entry establishes beyond doubt

that the respondent judge has proceeded to judgment on the subject motion and that

this case is moot.

Accordingly, this court grants the respondent judge’s motion for

summary judgment and dismisses this application for procedendo action as moot.

Respondent to pay costs; costs waived. This court directs the clerk of courts to serve

all parties notice of the judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required

by Civ.R. 58(B).

Writ dismissed.

_________________________ EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

ANITA LASTER MAYS, A.J., and MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR

1 The relator named Judge Dick Ambrose as the respondent. However, he has retired, and Judge John J. Russo now presides over the case. Pursuant to Civ.R. 21, this court substitutes Judge John J. Russo as the proper respondent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2023 Ohio 4065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rch-v-russo-ohioctapp-2023.