Case Title: Howard v. Spore

Citation: 2001-Ohio-297

Docket Number: 20001645

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-03-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Howard v. Spore, 91 Ohio St.3d 131, 2001-Ohio-297.] 
 
 
 
HOWARD, APPELLANT, v. SPORE, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Howard v. Spore (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 131.] 
Complaint for writ of procedendo to compel municipal court judge to rule on 
relator’s pending motions in a personal injury action — Mandamus 
sought to compel municipal court judge to report alleged ethical 
misconduct by an opposing attorney — Dismissal of case by court of 
appeals affirmed. 
(No. 00-1645 — Submitted December 12, 2000 — Decided March 7, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-11-79. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Appellant, Gregory T. Howard, filed a personal injury action 
in the Toledo Municipal Court.  Appellee, Judge Judson P. Spore of the 
Perrysburg Municipal Court, was assigned to the case. 
 
In July 1999, Howard filed a motion for new trial or to amend findings 
and judgments.  In the same motion, Howard filed an affidavit of disqualification 
against Judge Spore. 
 
In 2000, Howard filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Lucas 
County for a writ of procedendo to compel Judge Spore to rule on his pending 
motions.  Howard also requested a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Spore to 
report alleged ethical misconduct by an opposing attorney in the underlying case.  
Judge Spore filed a motion to dismiss. 
 
In his appeal of right, Howard essentially contends that the court of 
appeals erred in dismissing his action in procedendo and mandamus.  For the 
following reasons, Howard’s contention is meritless. 
 
Howard is not entitled to a writ of procedendo because Judge Spore 
neither refused nor unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment.  State ex rel. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Weiss v. Hoover (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 530, 532, 705 N.E.2d 1227, 1229.  Under 
R.C. 2701.031(D)(1), Howard’s affidavit of disqualification prevented Judge 
Spore from ruling on Howard’s substantive motions in the underlying case until 
the presiding judge of the common pleas court decided the affidavit.  See State ex 
rel. Kreps v. Christiansen (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 317-318, 725 N.E.2d 663, 
667. 
 
Further, Howard is not entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel Judge 
Spore to report ethical misconduct because Howard has or had an adequate legal 
remedy by filing a grievance under Gov.Bar R. V.  See State ex rel. Forsyth v. 
Brigner (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 299, 300, 714 N.E.2d 922, 923-924 (“A plain and 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law precludes extraordinary relief in 
mandamus”); cf. Christensen v. Bd. of Commrs. on Grievances & Discipline 
(1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 534, 537, 575 N.E.2d 790, 792 (“[The] disciplinary 
procedure is the equivalent of [an] appeal * * * and is an adequate remedy at 
law”).  Further, to the extent that Howard may have already unsuccessfully 
invoked this alternate remedy, he may not relitigate the same issue by way of 
mandamus.  State ex rel. Smith v. Fuerst (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 456, 457, 732 
N.E.2d 983, 985. 
 
Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed the case.  
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
RESNICK, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
Gregory T. Howard, pro se. 
 
Rayle, Matthews & Coon and Max E. Rayle, for appellee. 
__________________