Case Title: State ex rel. Evans v. McGrath

Citation: 2017-Ohio-8707

Docket Number: 2016-1755

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2017-11-29T00:00:00Z

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. 2017-Ohio-8707.] 
 
 
 
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. 2017-OHIO-8707 
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.  
2017-Ohio-8707.] 
Mandamus and prohibition—Relator has adequate remedy in ordinary course of 
law—Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed. 
(No. 2016-1755—Submitted May 16, 2017—Decided November 29, 2017.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 
No. 16AP-458, 2016-Ohio-7875. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals 
dismissing the petition of appellant, William H. Evans Jr., for writs of mandamus 
and prohibition. 
{¶ 2} In 2015, Evans filed a complaint against the Ohio Department of 
Rehabilitation and Correction (“DRC”) in the Court of Claims, alleging that DRC 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
was negligent in providing medical care and treatment to him at Ross Correctional 
Institution.  Appellee, Court of Claims Judge Patrick M. McGrath, presided over 
Evans’s case in that court. 
{¶ 3} While his medical-malpractice case was pending, Evans filed a 
petition in the Tenth District for (1) a writ of mandamus to compel Judge McGrath 
to allow Evans to proceed with his lawsuit based on Evans’s alleged absolute right 
to pursue a civil action and (2) a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge McGrath from 
dismissing the lawsuit. 
{¶ 4} Evans’s petition was referred to a magistrate, who recommended 
dismissal because Evans failed to file the certified cashier’s statement required 
under R.C. 2969.25(C)(1).  The court of appeals adopted the magistrate’s 
recommendation to dismiss but stated different reasons for the dismissal.  The court 
held that Evans did not have a clear legal right in mandamus to compel Judge 
McGrath to “disregard or ignore a statutory requirement placed upon plaintiffs in 
medical claims by the Ohio legislature.”  2016-Ohio-7875, ¶ 5.  The court also held 
that Evans failed to state a claim in prohibition in that his petition improperly sought 
to bar Judge McGrath, who had jurisdiction over the medical-malpractice case, 
from dismissing Evans’s lawsuit.  Id. at ¶ 3. 
{¶ 5} On October 25, 2016, Judge McGrath entered judgment in favor of 
DRC and dismissed Evans’s case under Civ.R. 41(B)(2) for Evans’s failure to 
present evidence to support his medical-malpractice claim.  Evans v. Dept. of 
Rehab. & Corr., Ct. of Cl. No. 2015-00663.  Evans’s appeal from Judge McGrath’s 
judgment dismissing his medical-malpractice suit is currently pending, as case No. 
16AP-767, in the Tenth District. 
{¶ 6} We affirm the court of appeals’ judgment.  To be entitled to a writ of 
mandamus, Evans must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, a clear legal 
right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of Judge McGrath to 
provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  
January Term, 2017 
 
3
State ex rel. Tucker v. Matia, 147 Ohio St.3d 418, 2016-Ohio-7450, 66 N.E.3d 730, 
¶ 2.  For a writ of prohibition to issue, Evans must show that Judge McGrath has 
exercised judicial power, that the exercise of that power was unauthorized by law, 
and that denying the writ would result in injury for which no other adequate remedy 
exists in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Bell v. Pfeiffer, 131 Ohio St.3d 
114, 2012-Ohio-54, 961 N.E.2d 181, ¶ 18. 
{¶ 7} The issues raised by Evans in his mandamus and prohibition petition 
in this case can be raised in his appeal to the Tenth District from Judge McGrath’s 
dismissal of his medical-malpractice suit.  R.C. 2743.20.  Evans is not entitled to a 
writ of mandamus or prohibition, because “[a]n appeal is generally considered an 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law sufficient to preclude a writ.”  Shoop 
v. State, 144 Ohio St.3d 374, 2015-Ohio-2068, 43 N.E.3d 432, ¶ 8, citing State ex 
rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631 (1967), 
paragraph three of the syllabus. 
{¶ 8} We also deny Evans’s motions to stay the proceedings in his appeal 
to the Tenth District from Judge McGrath’s dismissal of his medical-malpractice 
case. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER, 
and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
 
William H. Evans Jr., pro se. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Bridget C. Coontz, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
_________________