Case Title: State ex rel. Dehler v. Kelly

Citation: 2009-Ohio-5259

Docket Number: 20091121

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-10-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Dehler v. Kelly, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-5259.] 
 
 
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. 2009-OHIO-5259 
THE STATE EX REL. DEHLER, APPELLANT, v. KELLY, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Dehler v. Kelly,  
Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-5259.] 
Court of appeals’ judgment denying writ of mandamus affirmed — Mandamus 
will not compel performance of an act that has already been performed — 
Prisoner failed to prove a reasonable expectation that he would be subject 
to the same action again. 
(No. 2009-1121 — Submitted September 30, 2009 — Decided October 7, 2009.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County, No. 2008-T-0062, 
2009-Ohio-2534. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of 
mandamus to compel a prison warden to provide properly fitting shoes to 
appellant, Lambert Dehler.  Mandamus will not compel the performance of an act 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
that has already been performed.  State ex rel. Fontanella v. Kontos, 117 Ohio 
St.3d 514, 2008-Ohio-1431, 885 N.E.2d 220, ¶ 6. 
{¶ 2} The court of appeals correctly restricted its holding to Dehler 
himself because Dehler did not bring his mandamus case as a class action.  See 
State ex rel. Ogan v. Teater (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 235, 247, 8 O.O.3d 217, 375 
N.E.2d 1233 (“Where, as in the instant cause, the party bringing suit does not 
attempt to bring his cause of action within the provisions of Civ.R. 23, it is clear 
that the court may properly limit its holding to that of the party alone”).  With that 
restriction, Dehler was unable to establish that his mandamus claim was not moot, 
i.e., he failed to prove a reasonable expectation that he would be subject to the 
same action again.  See State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Heath, 121 Ohio St.3d 
165, 2009-Ohio-590, 902 N.E.2d 976, ¶ 11. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Lambert Dehler, pro se. 
 
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Ashley Dawn Rutherford, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 
_______________________