Case ID: ohio-st-3d_133/html/0138-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Patel et al., Appellants, v. Crawford, Judge, Appellee.
    [Cite as Patel v. Crawford, 133 Ohio St.3d 138, 2012-Ohio-4229.]
    (No. 2012-0728
    Submitted September 12, 2012
    Decided September 19, 2012.)
   Per Curiam.

Arvind and Bharati Patel, pro se.

Chris Berhalter, Belmont County Prosecuting Attorney, and David K. Liberati, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellants, Arvind and Bharati Patel, for a writ of mandamus. The Patels sought the writ to compel appellee, Judge Dale A. Crawford, sitting by assignment in Longwell v. Patel, Belmont C.P. No. 03-CY-036, to hear appellant Arvind Patel’s motion for sanctions “prior to presiding over the trial” in the case. Appellants could not establish either a clear legal right to the requested extraordinary relief or a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of Judge Crawford to provide it because the case was dismissed before any trial could occur.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur. 
      
      . The court of appeals also dismissed appellants’ claims for a continuance, to give them time to retain counsel and to appoint a translator to aid appellant Bharati Patel at trial, but appellants do not claim any error in the court’s holding on these claims in this appeal.