Case Title: State ex rel. Humphrey v. Jago

Citation: 1996-Ohio-94

Docket Number: 19952184

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-03-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
The State ex rel. Humphrey, Appellant, v. Jago, Appellee. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Humphrey v. Jago (1996),    Ohio St.3d     .] 
Mandamus to compel Ohio Penal Industries to pay relator additional 
compensation -- Writ denied when adequate remedy at law 
available -- Inmate grievance procedure provided in Ohio Adm.Code 
5120-9-31 constitutes an adequate legal remedy which must be 
exhausted prior to instituting a mandamus action regarding 
complaints and problems of inmates relating to conditions of their 
incarceration. 
 
(No. 95-2184 -- Submitted January 23, 1996 -- Decided March 1, 1996.) 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No 95APD03-293. 
 
Appellant, Paul M. Humphrey, filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that as an inmate at the London Correctional Institute, 
he worked in the refurbishing shop for Ohio Penal Industries (“OPI”).   According 
to Humphrey, he refurbished office panels for the Thomas Ruff Company.   
Humphrey requested a writ of mandamus compelling appellee, OPI Industry 
Manager Robin A. Jago, to pay him additional compensation for the work he 
performed for the Thomas Ruff Company.  Humphrey had not pursued the inmate 
grievance procedure set forth in Ohio Adm. Code 5120-9-31 prior to instituting 
his action for an extraordinary writ.   
 
2
 
The court of appeals subsequently granted Jago’s motion for summary 
judgment and denied the writ.  The court of appeals held: 
 
“Relator has not presented any evidence or argument to establish that the 
administrative grievance procedures available to him are inadequate to obtain the 
additional compensation which he seeks.  [State ex rel.] Wiggins [v. Barnes 
(1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 45, 565 N.E.2d 598] is accordingly not controlling on this 
issue of whether mandamus is unavailable because an adequate remedy at law is 
available to relator.  We therefore find that relator cannot sustain an action in 
mandamus prior to exhausting his available administrative remedies under Ohio 
Adm. Code 5120-9-31.”   
 
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
____________________ 
 
Paul M. Humphrey, pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Todd R. Marti, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons 
stated in its opinion, i.e., the inmate grievance procedure provided in Ohio Adm. 
 
3
Code 5120-9-31 constitutes an adequate legal remedy which must be exhausted 
prior to instituting a mandamus action regarding complaints and problems of 
inmates relating to the conditions of their incarceration.  See Karmasu v. Tate 
(1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 199, 204, 614 N.E.2d 827, 830, fn. 5, citing State ex rel. 
Burns v. Tate (June 30, 1992), Scioto App. No. 2011, unreported, at 5, 1992 WL 
154141. 
 
As the court of appeals below noted, Humphrey’s reliance on Wiggins is 
misplaced, since no argument was raised in that case as to the availability of Ohio 
Adm. Code 5120-9-31 as an adequate legal remedy.  In addition, Wiggins was 
premised on a former version of an administrative rule that was not in effect at the 
time of Humphrey’s pertinent employment in the prison refurbishing shop.  
Ridenour v. Ohio Penal Industries (Mar. 28, 1995), Franklin App. No. 94API10-
1529, unreported, 1995 WL 141037. 
 
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and 
COOK, JJ., concur.