State ex rel. Miller v. Saffold

2017 Ohio 5751

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 6, 2017
• Docket: 105715
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Miller v. Saffold, 2017-Ohio-5751.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 105715

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. ROBERT MILLER

RELATOR

vs.

HONORABLE SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD

RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 507075 Order No. 508114

RELEASE DATE: July 3, 2017 FOR RELATOR

Robert Miller, pro se Inmate No. 542-127 Allen Correctional Institution P.O. Box 4501 Lima, Ohio 45802

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Michael C. O’Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113

TIM McCORMACK, J.: {¶1} On April 28, 2017, the relator, Robert Miller, commenced this mandamus action

against the respondent Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold to compel a ruling on a motion for

jail-time credit, which Miller filed on July 5, 2016, in the underlying case, State v. Miller,

Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-07-500918-A. On May 12, 2017, the respondent moved for summary

judgment on the grounds of mootness. Attached to the dispositive motion was a copy of a May

8, 2017 journal entry granting 126 days of jail-time credit in the underlying case. This

establishes that the relator has received his requested relief and that the action is, therefore, moot.

State ex rel. Corder v. Wilson, 68 Ohio App.3d 567, 589 N.E.2d 113 (10th Dist.1991).

{¶2} Relator also did not comply with R.C. 2969.25©, which requires that an inmate file

a certified statement from his prison cashier setting forth the balance in his private account for

each of the preceding six months. This also is sufficient reason to deny the mandamus, deny

indigency status, and assess costs against the relator. State ex rel. Pamer v. Collier, 108 Ohio

St.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-1507, 844 N.E.2d 842; State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of

Common Pleas, 88 Ohio St.3d 176, 2000-Ohio-285, 724 N.E.2d 420; and Hazel v. Knab, 130

Ohio St.3d 22, 2011-Ohio-4608, 955 N.E.2d 378 — the defect may not be cured by subsequent

filings.

{¶3} Accordingly, the court grants the respondent’s motion for summary judgment and

denies the writ. Costs assessed against the relator. The clerk is directed to serve upon the

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

{¶4} Writ denied.

TIM McCORMACK, JUDGE

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, A.J., and LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR