Case Title: State ex rel. Evans v. McGrath

Citation: 2018-Ohio-3018

Docket Number: 2017-1259

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2018-08-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Evans v. McGrath, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-3018.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2018-OHIO-3018 
THE STATE EX REL. EVANS, APPELLANT, v. MCGRATH, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Evans v. McGrath, Slip Opinion No.  
2018-Ohio-3018.] 
Mandamus and prohibition—Court of Claims did not fail to comply with an 
appellate court’s mandate—Court of Appeals’ judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2017-1259—Submitted February 27, 2018—Decided August 2, 2018.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 
No. 17AP-40, 2017-Ohio-7418. 
_______________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, William H. Evans Jr., appeals the judgment of the Tenth 
District Court of Appeals dismissing his complaint for writs of mandamus and 
prohibition against appellee, Judge Patrick M. McGrath of the Court of Claims.  We 
affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Background 
{¶ 2} In 2014, Evans, then an inmate at the Ross Correctional Institution, 
filed a negligence action against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and 
Correction in the Ohio Court of Claims.  Judge McGrath dismissed the suit, but 
Evans appealed, and the Tenth District reversed and remanded “for further 
appropriate proceedings.”  Evans v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. 
Franklin No. 15AP-463, 2015-Ohio-3492, ¶ 17. 
{¶ 3} While Evans’s negligence action was pending on remand, he filed 
with the Tenth District a complaint for writs of prohibition and mandamus against 
Judge McGrath.  He sought an order prohibiting Judge McGrath from conducting 
proceedings on the defendant’s liability and requiring him to hold a damages-only 
hearing on Evans’s negligence claim.  The court of appeals dismissed Evans’s 
complaint for the writs on the grounds that he had misunderstood its order to the 
Court of Claims, which held only that Evans had met the liberal pleading standards 
required of complaints for negligence and not that Evans had prevailed on the 
merits.  State ex rel. Evans v. McGrath, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 17AP-40, 2017-
Ohio-7418, ¶ 4-5. 
Legal Analysis 
{¶ 4} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Evans must establish (1) a clear 
legal right to the requested relief, (2) a corresponding legal duty on the part of Judge 
McGrath to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course 
of the law.  State ex rel. Marsh v. Tibbals, 149 Ohio St.3d 656, 2017-Ohio-829, 77 
N.E.3d 909, ¶ 24.  Three elements are necessary for a writ of prohibition to issue:  
the exercise of judicial power, the lack of authority for the exercise of that power, 
and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. 
Elder v. Camplese, 144 Ohio St.3d 89, 2015-Ohio-3628, 40 N.E.3d 1138, ¶ 13.  He 
must prove entitlement to the writs by clear and convincing evidence.  State ex rel. 
Marsh at ¶ 24.  “Our plenary authority in extraordinary actions permits us to 
January Term, 2018 
 
3
consider the instant appeal as if it had been originally filed in this court.”  State ex 
rel. Minor v. Eschen, 74 Ohio St.3d 134, 138, 656 N.E.2d 940 (1995). 
{¶ 5} Evans contends that mandamus and/or prohibition are appropriate to 
restrict Judge McGrath on remand to holding a damages-only hearing.  In support, 
he cites res judicata, the law of the case, and the “cross-error rule.”  However, the 
court of appeals decided only that Evans’s complaint sufficiently alleged the 
elements of a negligence claim and could withstand a motion to dismiss under 
Civ.R. 12(B)(6) (“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”).  It did 
not, as Evans contends, determine that Evans had proven negligence such that 
Judge McGrath would be required to hold a damages-only hearing. 
{¶ 6} A writ of mandamus “is an appropriate remedy to require a lower 
court to comply with an appellate court's mandate directed to that court.”  State ex 
rel. Heck v. Kessler, 72 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 647 N.E.2d 792 (1995).  However, the 
court of appeals did not order the court to determine the negligence action in 
Evans’s favor, and nothing in the record suggests that Judge McGrath is refusing 
to comply with the mandate of the court of appeals.  Nor does Judge McGrath lack 
the authority to preside over a claim for relief in negligence.  Therefore, the court 
of appeals correctly dismissed Evans’s complaint in mandamus and prohibition. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, 
and DEGENARO, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
William H. Evans Jr., pro se. 
Michael DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, and Bridget C. Coontz, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
_________________