Case Title: State ex rel. Keith v. McMonagle

Citation: 2004-Ohio-5580

Docket Number: 20040898

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-11-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Keith v. McMonagle, 103 Ohio St.3d 430, 2004-Ohio-5580.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. KEITH, APPELLANT, v. MCMONAGLE, JUDGE, ET AL., 
APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Keith v. McMonagle, 103 Ohio St.3d 430, 2004-Ohio-
5580.] 
Final orders—Mandamus to compel judge to rule on motions—Order adding 
other judges as parties not appealable. 
(No. 2004-0898 — Submitted September 15, 2004 — Decided November 3, 
2004.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 83961. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
On December 18, 2003, appellant, Jeffrey C. Keith, an inmate at 
Lorain Correctional Institution, filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for 
Cuyahoga County for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County 
Common Pleas Court Judge Richard McMonagle, to rule on certain motions filed 
by Keith.  Judge McMonagle moved for summary judgment on the basis that the 
underlying common pleas court cases had been assigned to Judge Daniel Gaul and 
Judge Joseph Cirigliano instead of him. 
{¶2} 
On May 18, 2004, the court of appeals issued an entry finding that 
Judge McMonagle was not the assigned judge in the underlying cases and that 
Judge Gaul and Judge Cirigliano were the properly assigned judges.  The court of 
appeals sua sponte added Judge Gaul and Judge Cirigliano as respondents and 
“invited [the prosecuting attorney] to submit another motion for summary 
judgment, demonstrating that the subject motions have been resolved by the 
proper judges.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
On appeal, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction to 
address the merits.  Appeals as a matter of right may be taken to the Supreme 
Court in cases originating in courts of appeals, including actions involving 
extraordinary writs.  Section 2(B)(2)(a)(i), Article IV, Ohio Constitution.  R.C. 
2505.03 restricts the appellate jurisdiction of this court to the review of final 
orders, judgments, or decrees.  State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. 
(1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 82, 84, 661 N.E.2d 728.  R.C. 2505.02 defines a final order 
for purposes of appeal. 
{¶4} 
The May 18, 2004 entry appealed by Keith is not a final, 
appealable order.  This entry does not determine Keith’s mandamus claim or 
prevent a judgment.  R.C. 2505.02(B)(1).  “A judgment that leaves issues 
unresolved and contemplates that further action must be taken is not a final 
appealable order.”   Bell v. Horton (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 694, 696, 756 N.E.2d 
1241; Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ. (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 86, 89, 541 
N.E.2d 64 (“since the September 4 order did not determine Chef Italiano’s claim 
and prevent it from obtaining a judgment against Testa, it is not a final, appealable 
order pursuant to R.C. 2505.02 regardless of the presence of Civ.R. 54[B] 
language”). 
{¶5} 
Moreover, the court of appeals’ May 18 order was not made in a 
special proceeding, because mandamus claims were recognized at common law.  
State ex rel. White v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 543, 
545, 684 N.E.2d 72; R.C. 2505.02(B)(2). 
{¶6} 
Finally, although in its May 18 entry, the court of appeals agreed 
that Judge McMonagle was not a proper respondent, it did not dismiss him from 
the case and make an express determination that there was no just reason for delay 
under Civ.R. 54(B).  Cf. State ex rel. A & D Ltd. Partnership v. Keefe  (1996), 77 
Ohio St.3d 50, 56, 671 N.E.2d 13 (“An order adjudicating one or more but fewer 
than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties must 
January Term, 2004 
3 
meet the requirements of R.C. 2505.02 and Civ.R. 54[B] in order to be final and 
appealable”). 
{¶7} 
Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of Keith’s 
appeal because the court of appeals’ entry sua sponte adding two judges as 
respondents is not a final appealable order.  Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.  
By so holding, we need not consider the merits of Keith’s motion for default 
judgment. 
Appeal dismissed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON and 
O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
 
O’DONNELL, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
Jeffrey C. Keith, pro se. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kerry A. 
Sowul, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_____________________________