State ex rel. Miller v. Saffold

2026 Ohio 358
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 4, 2026
Docket115886
StatusPublished

This text of 2026 Ohio 358 (State ex rel. Miller v. Saffold) 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
State ex rel. Miller v. Saffold, 2026 Ohio 358 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Miller v. Saffold, 2026-Ohio-358.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE EX REL. GREGORY MILLER, JR., :

Relator, : No. 115886

v. :

HON. JEFFREY P. SAFFOLD, :

Respondent. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: COMPLAINT DISMISSED DATE: February 4, 2026

Writ of Procedendo Motion No. 591134 Order No. 591941

Appearances:

Gregory Miller, Jr., pro se.

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael J. Stewart, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:

On December 5, 2025, the relator, Gregory Miller, Jr., commenced

this procedendo action to compel the respondent, Judge Jeffrey Saffold, to proceed to judgment on a postconviction-relief petition that Miller filed on June 27, 2025, in

the underlying case, State v. Miller, Cuyahoga No. CR-21-664866-A. On January 5,

2026, the respondent judge moved to dismiss the procedendo action on the grounds

of mootness. Attached to the dispositive motion was a copy of a certified December

23, 2025 journal entry denying Miller’s postconviction-relief petition. This journal

entry establishes that the judge has proceeded to judgment and that Miller has

received his requested relief, a ruling on his petition, and that this procedendo action

is moot. Miller did not file a response to the motion to dismiss but did appeal the

denial of the postconviction-relief petition, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 116061.

Accordingly, this court grants the respondent’s motion to dismiss and

dismisses the writ. Costs assessed against respondent; costs waived. 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).

Complaint dismissed.

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and WILLIAM A. KLATT, J.,* CONCUR

(*Sitting by assignment: William A. Klatt, J., retired, of the Tenth District Court of Appeals.)

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2026 Ohio 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-miller-v-saffold-ohioctapp-2026.