State ex rel. Dudley v. Sheehan

2012 Ohio 1208

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 19, 2012
• Docket: 97806
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Dudley v. Sheehan, 2012-Ohio-1208.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97806

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., EDDIE DUDLEY RELATOR

vs.

JUDGE BRENDAN J. SHEEHAN RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Mandamus Motion No.451752 Order No. 453085

RELEASE DATE: March 19, 2012 FOR RELATOR

Eddie Dudley, pro se Inmate No. 582-483 Lorain Correctional Institution 2075 South Avon-Belden Road Grafton, OH 44044

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

By: James E. Moss Asst. County Prosecutor Justice Center, 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:

{¶1} On January 6, 2012, the relator, Eddie Dudley, commenced this mandamus

action against the respondent, Judge Brendan Sheehan, to compel the judge to rule upon

various motions that he filed in the underlying cases, State v. Dudley, Cuyahoga C.P.

Nos. CR-530921-A, CR-550587-A, CR-500881-A, and CR-532408-A. On January 27,

2012, the respondent, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, moved for summary

judgment on the grounds of mootness. Dudley never filed a response. For the

following reasons, this court grants the motion for summary judgment.

{¶2} In his first claim, Dudley avers that he filed a motion to vacate fines and

court costs in all four of the underlying cases on August 31, 2010. Dudley attached a

copy of this motion as Exhibit A to his complaint. He has typed in the case caption

Case No. CR-09-530921-A. Above that written in pen or pencil are also the numbers

500881 and 500587. However, an examination of the dockets in the four underlying

cases show that the motion to vacate fines and court costs was filed only in Case No.

CR-530921-A. The respondent judge attached a certified copy of the motion as Exhibit

A to his motion for summary judgment. The certified copy has only the typed-in

number CR-09-530921-A. Furthermore, the motion itself asks for “an order in the

above style [sic] case.” The affidavit of indigency attached to the motion to vacate fines

and court costs lists only the 530921 number. Moreover, once a motion for summary

judgment has been made, the nonmoving party may not rest on the mere allegations of his pleading, but must respond pursuant to Civ.R. 56. Dudley never did so. Accordingly,

this court concludes that the motion to vacate fines and court costs was filed only in Case

No. CR-530921-A. In his second claim, Dudley seeks rulings on motions for a monthly

installment plan filed in all four underlying cases on July 14, 2010.

{¶3} Attached to the respondent’s motion for summary judgment are certified

copies of signed, file-stamped January 19, 2012 journal entries denying all of the

outstanding motions. Specifically, one journal entry denies the motion to vacate fines

and court costs in CR-530921-A, and four other journal entries deny the motions for an

installment plan in the underlying four cases. These journal entries establish that the

respondent judge has fulfilled his duty to rule on the subject motions and that Dudley has

received the relief to which he is entitled. This matter is moot.

{¶4} Accordingly, this court grants the motion for summary judgment and denies

the application for a writ of mandamus. Respondent to pay costs. This court directs

the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of Appeals to serve upon the parties notice of this

judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B).

Writ denied.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., CONCUR