State ex rel. Evans v. McGrath (Slip Opinion)
This text of 2018 Ohio 3018 (State ex rel. Evans v. McGrath (Slip Opinion)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
*287 {¶ 1} Appellant, William H. Evans Jr., appeals the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals dismissing his complaint for writs of mandamus and prohibition against appellee, Judge Patrick M.
*780 McGrath of the Court of Claims. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Background
{¶ 2}
In 2014, Evans, then an inmate at the Ross Correctional Institution, filed a negligence action against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction in the Ohio Court of Claims. Judge McGrath dismissed the suit, but Evans appealed, and the Tenth District reversed and remanded "for further appropriate proceedings."
Evans v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.,
10th Dist. Franklin No. 15AP-463,
{¶ 3}
While Evans's negligence action was pending on remand, he filed with the Tenth District a complaint for writs of prohibition and mandamus against Judge McGrath. He sought an order prohibiting Judge McGrath from conducting proceedings on the defendant's liability and requiring him to hold a damages-only hearing on Evans's negligence claim. The court of appeals dismissed Evans's complaint for the writs on the grounds that he had misunderstood its order to the Court of Claims, because the court of appeals previously had held only that Evans had met the liberal pleading standards required of complaints for negligence and not that Evans had prevailed on the merits.
State ex rel. Evans v. McGrath
, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 17AP-40,
Legal Analysis
{¶ 4}
To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Evans must establish (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a corresponding legal duty on the part of Judge McGrath to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the
*288
ordinary course of the law.
State ex rel. Marsh v. Tibbals
,
{¶ 5} Evans contends that a writ mandamus and/or prohibition is appropriate to restrict Judge McGrath on remand to holding a damages-only hearing. In support, he cites res judicata, the law of the case, and the "cross-error rule." However, the court of appeals had held only that Evans's complaint sufficiently alleged the elements of a negligence claim and could withstand a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) ("failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted"). It did not, as Evans contends, determine that Evans had proved negligence such that Judge McGrath was required to hold a damages-only hearing.
{¶ 6}
A writ of mandamus "is an appropriate remedy to require a lower court to comply with an appellate court's mandate directed to that court."
State ex rel. Heck v. Kessler
,
Judgment affirmed.
O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2018 Ohio 3018, 104 N.E.3d 779, 153 Ohio St. 3d 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-evans-v-mcgrath-slip-opinion-ohio-2018.