Case Title: State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel

Citation: 2003-Ohio-6448

Docket Number: 20031320

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-12-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[CITE AS STATE EX REL. FULLER V. MENGEL, 100 OHIO ST.3D 352, 2003-OHIO-6448.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. FULLER, APPELLANT, v. MENGEL, CLERK, ET AL., 
APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d 352, 2003-Ohio-6448.] 
Mandamus sought to compel Clerk of Supreme Court of Ohio et al. to file 
relator’s untimely corrected memorandum in support of jurisdiction 
received by the Clerk’s Office — Court of appeals’ dismissal of 
complaint affirmed. 
(No. 2003-1320 — Submitted November 19, 2003 — Decided December 24, 
2003.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 03AP-2, 2003-Ohio-
3558. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In March 1999, appellant, Johnny R. Fuller, submitted a notice of 
appeal, an affidavit of indigency, and a memorandum in support of jurisdiction to 
the Clerk’s Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio for filing.  By letter dated March 
2, 1999, appellee Deputy Clerk Rita Nash informed Fuller that his memorandum 
had not been filed because his appeal was as of right. 
{¶2} 
Fuller subsequently mailed a brief that was received by the Clerk’s 
Office in October 1999.  By letter dated October 20, 1999, Nash returned the brief 
to Fuller because he had failed to perfect his appeal within the time period 
prescribed by S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(1).  Fuller then requested the Clerk’s Office to 
file his documents because he had delivered them to his prison’s officials on the 
last day of the filing period.  Appellee Deputy Clerk Helka Gienapp notified 
Fuller that the documents submitted by mail are not considered filed until 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
received by the Clerk’s Office.  Consequently, appellant’s brief would not be filed 
because it was not timely submitted pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(1)(A). 
{¶3} 
In September 2002, Fuller submitted certain documents to the 
Clerk’s Office for filing.  The Clerk’s Office returned the submitted documents 
because the memorandum in support of jurisdiction exceeded the limit set by 
S.Ct.Prac.R. III(1)(C) and contained prohibited attachments.  See S.Ct.Prac.R. 
III(1)(D).  The Clerk’s Office further advised Fuller that if he was appealing an 
August 13, 2002 judgment, his “corrected memorandum in support of jurisdiction, 
notice of appeal and affidavit of indigency must be received in the Clerk’s Office 
no later than Friday, September 27, 2002 by 5:00 p.m.” (Emphasis sic.)  
{¶4} 
Fuller claims that he gave the corrected documents to the prison 
mailroom supervisor on September 25, 2002 to be delivered to the Clerk’s Office.  
The documents were not received by the Clerk’s Office until September 30, and 
the office returned them to Fuller because they were not timely submitted. 
{¶5} 
On January 2, 2003, Fuller filed a complaint in the Court of 
Appeals for Franklin County for a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, Marcia 
J. Mengel, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio, and Deputy Clerks Nash and 
Gienapp, to file the corrected memorandum in support of jurisdiction received by 
the Clerk’s Office on September 30, 2002.  Fuller claimed that he was entitled to 
the writ because appellees’ actions violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments 
to the United States Constitution, and Section 3, Article I of the Ohio Constitution 
(“The people  have the right * * * to petition the general assembly for the redress 
of grievances”); R.C. 2921.31 (obstructing official business), and R.C. 2921.45 
(interfering with civil rights).  Fuller further asserted in this and other filings that 
appellees lacked authority to refuse to file his memorandum, that appellees had 
applied the Supreme Court Rules of Practice incorrectly, that appellees’ conduct 
violated his rights to due process and access to the court, and that as a pro se 
January Term, 2003 
3 
litigant, he was entitled to be treated differently from a litigant represented by 
counsel. 
{¶6} 
Appellees moved to dismiss Fuller’s complaint for failure to state a 
claim upon which relief can be granted.  In July 2003, the court of appeals granted 
appellees’ motion and dismissed Fuller’s complaint. 
{¶7} 
On appeal, Fuller asserts that the court of appeals erred in 
dismissing his mandamus complaint.  In order to be entitled to the requested 
extraordinary relief in mandamus, Fuller had to establish a clear legal right to 
have his corrected memorandum in support of jurisdiction filed, a corresponding 
clear legal duty on the part of appellees to file it, and the lack of an adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of law.  State ex rel. Rankin v. Ohio Adult Parole 
Auth., 98 Ohio St.3d 476, 2003-Ohio-2061, 786 N.E.2d 1286, ¶ 6. 
{¶8} 
Fuller has no clear legal right to the requested relief, and appellees 
have no clear legal duty to provide it.  Fuller was required to file a memorandum 
in support of jurisdiction “no later than 45 days from the entry of the court of 
appeals judgment being appealed.”  S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(3)(b).  When Fuller 
failed to submit his corrected memorandum to the Clerk’s Office within that time 
period, appellees had a duty not to file the corrected memorandum.  See 
S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(1)(C):  “No pleading, memorandum, brief, or other document 
may be filed after the filing deadlines imposed by the rules * * *.” 
{¶9} 
Appellees’ application of these rules to Fuller’s attempted filing 
did not violate his due process or any other asserted constitutional right.  As the 
court of appeals held, Fuller “was given notice and the opportunity to be heard 
under the rules and simply failed to [follow] the procedure to avail himself of this 
opportunity.”  Similarly, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 
held that this court did not violate an attorney’s due process rights by entrusting 
the Clerk’s Office with determining whether a merit brief was filed in accordance 
with the Rules of Practice.  See Metz v. Supreme Court of Ohio (C.A.6, 2002), 46 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Fed.Appx. 228, 234, 2002 WL 1941012, unreported (“there was no apparent due 
process violation when a clerk of the court is entrusted to make the determination 
whether Plaintiff’s merits brief was filed in accordance with the applicable rules 
of practice governing the Supreme Court of Ohio”). 
{¶10} Moreover, appellees’ application of the rules to Fuller’s attempted 
filing did not, as Fuller claims on appeal, violate his constitutional right to equal 
protection.  Instead, the rules apply equally to all litigants.  “It is well established 
that pro se litigants are presumed to have knowledge of the law and legal 
procedures and that they are held to the same standard as litigants who are 
represented by counsel.”  Sabouri v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Serv. (2001), 
145 Ohio App.3d 651, 654, 763 N.E.2d 1238. 
{¶11} Based on the foregoing, Fuller’s complaint did not state a claim for 
extraordinary relief in mandamus.  Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court 
of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Johnny R. Fuller, pro se. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Elise W. Porter, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellees. 
__________________