State ex rel. Washington v. Breux
This text of 2019 Ohio 3088 (State ex rel. Washington v. Breux) 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.
Opinion
[Cite as State ex rel. Washington v. Breux, 2019-Ohio-3088.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE EX REL. JIMMIE L. C.A. No. 29436 WASHINGTON
Relator
v.
HONORABLE ALISON BREAUX ORIGINAL ACTION IN PROCEDENDO Respondent
Dated: July 31, 2019
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Relator, Jimmie L. Washington, has petitioned this Court for a writ of
procedendo to compel Respondent, Judge Breaux, to rule on two motions he filed. Judge
Breaux has moved to dismiss and attached a copy of a journal entry that denied Mr.
Washington’s motions. The trial court docket demonstrates that Judge Breaux has entered
an order that denies the pending motions. Because Judge Breaux has ruled on the
motions, Mr. Washington’s claim is moot, and this Court dismisses his complaint.
{¶2} To be entitled to a writ of procedendo, Mr. Washington must establish a
clear legal right to require Judge Breaux to proceed, a clear legal duty on the part of Judge
Breaux to proceed, and a lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State
ex rel. Miley v. Parrott, Judge, 77 Ohio St.3d 64, 65 (1996). Procedendo is the C.A. No. 29436 Page 2 of 3
appropriate remedy when a court has refused to render a judgment or has unnecessarily
delayed proceeding to judgment. See, e.g., State ex rel. CNG Financial Corp. v. Nadel,
111 Ohio St.3d 149, 2006-Ohio-5344, ¶ 20. It is well-settled that procedendo will not
“compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.” State ex rel. Grove
v. Nadel, 84 Ohio St.3d 252, 253, 1998-Ohio-541.
{¶3} Mr. Washington sought a writ of procedendo to order Judge Breaux to rule
on his motions. This Court may consider evidence outside the complaint to determine
that an action is moot. State ex rel. Nelson v. Russo, 89 Ohio St.3d 227, 228 (2000).
According to Judge Breaux’s motion to dismiss, and a review of the trial court docket,
Judge Breaux has ruled on all of Mr. Washington’s pending motions. Accordingly, this
matter is moot.
{¶4} Because Mr. Washington’s claim is moot, his complaint is dismissed. Costs
are taxed to Mr. Washington. The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all
parties not in default notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See
Civ.R. 58(B).
THOMAS A. TEODOSIO FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, J. SCHAFER, J. CONCUR. C.A. No. 29436 Page 3 of 3
APPEARANCES:
JIMMIE L. WASHINGTON, Pro se, Relator.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and COLLEEN SIMS, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2019 Ohio 3088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-washington-v-breux-ohioctapp-2019.