The opinion
[Cite as State ex rel. Brown v. Barker, 2014-Ohio-2065.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
Nos. 101030 and 101032
STATE EX REL., JOHNNY BROWN
RELATOR
vs.
HONORABLE JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
WRIT DENIED
Writs of Mandamus and Procedendo
Motion Nos. 473165 and 473368
Order No. 474564
RELEASE DATE: May 13, 2014
-i-
RELATOR
Johnny Brown, pro se
#A650-168, T.C.I.
P.O. Box 901
Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: James E. Moss
Assistant County Prosecutor
9th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.:
{¶1} On February 24, 2014, the relator, Johnny Brown, commenced these writ
actions against the respondent, Judge Pamela A. Barker.1 It is difficult to discern exactly
what relief Brown seeks. In his complaint, he states that he seeks a writ of procedendo to
compel the respondent judge to rule on an R.C. 2953.21 postconviction relief petition that
he says he filed over three months ago in the underlying case, State v. Brown, Cuyahoga
C.P. No. CR-11-554270-A. His demand for judgment states: “that this Court issue a
procedendo against Respondent granting the mandamus action herein requiring
Respondent to perform according to what the law or office requires by proceeding to
judgment in this matter * * *.” Next, Brown includes a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus alleging that he is unlawfully imprisoned because “N/A jail time credit.” He also
attaches a proposed motion for 25 days of jail-time credit.
{¶2} On March 14, 2014, the respondent judge, through the Cuyahoga County
Prosecutor, moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness and procedural
defects. Attached to this dispositive motion was a copy of a certified, file-stamped
February 28, 2014 journal entry granting Brown 25 days of jail-time credit. Brown did
not file a timely response. For the following reasons, this court grants the judge’s
1
These two writ actions, State ex rel. Brown v. Barker, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 101030 and
101032, are identical except Case No. 101032 includes an additional attachment, a proposed motion
for jail-time credit. Thus, on April 10, 2014, this court consolidated the two cases for all purposes
and specifically ordered that the respondent’s motion for summary judgment would apply to both
cases.
summary judgment motion and denies the applications for an extraordinary writ.
{¶3} To the extent that Brown seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the judge to
grant him 25 days of jail-time credit, this action is moot.2 First, the court notes that the
docket of the underlying case shows that Brown never filed a motion for jail-time credit;
thus, he did not make the requisite filing to compel a ruling. Nevertheless, the gravamen
of his complaint is to obtain additional jail-time credit. The trial court rendered this issue
moot by granting the desired additional credit. Furthermore, a review of the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s website shows that Brown’s release date
has been moved from July 28, 2014, to July 1, 2014.
{¶4} To the extent that Brown seeks to compel a ruling on a postconviction relief
petition, his complaint is ill-founded. A review of the docket in the underlying case
shows that Brown never filed a postconviction relief petition. Thus, he has no right to a
ruling, and the judge has no duty to rule or proceed to judgment on such a matter.
{¶5} To the extent that Brown seeks a writ of habeas corpus, his petition is
defective. R.C. 2725.04(D) requires a habeas corpus petitioner to include a copy of the
commitment or cause of detention; Brown did not fulfill this requirement. Moreover, in
a habeas corpus action, the proper respondent is the individual who has actual custody of
2
The requisites for mandamus are well established: (1) the relator must have a clear legal
right to the requested relief, (2) the respondent must have a clear legal duty to perform the requested
relief and (3) there must be no adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus, 33 Ohio St.3d
118, 515 N.E.2d 914 (1987). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is to be exercised with
caution and only when the right is clear. It should not issue in doubtful cases. State ex rel. Taylor
v. Glasser, 50 Ohio St.2d 165, 364 N.E.2d 1 (1977).
the person, not the sentencing judge. Brown failed to name the proper respondent in the
case caption. Boyd v. McGinty, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84476, 2004-Ohio-2704.
{¶6} Brown also did not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) 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 writ, 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.
{¶7} Accordingly, this court grants the respondent’s motion for summary
judgment and denies the applications for an extraordinary writ. Relator to pay costs.
This court directs the clerk of court to serve all parties notice of this judgment and its date
of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).
{¶8} Writs denied.
_________________________________________
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE
KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR