Case Title: State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel

Citation: 1998-Ohio-541

Docket Number: 19981478

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-12-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE STATE EX REL. GROVE, APPELLANT, v. NADEL, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Complaint for writ of procedendo to compel common pleas court judge to 
journalize his decision denying relator’s motion for a transcript properly 
dismissed by court of appeals, when. 
(No. 98-1478 — Submitted November 10, 1998 — Decided December 30, 1998.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-970324. 
 
In April 1997, appellant, Mark Earl Grove, filed a complaint in the Court of 
Appeals for Hamilton County for a writ of procedendo to compel appellee, 
Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Norbert A. Nadel, to (1) issue 
findings of fact and conclusions of law on his January 1997 decision denying 
Grove’s motion for a transcript, and (2) journalize his January 1997 decision.  The 
court of appeals granted Judge Nadel’s motion and dismissed Grove’s complaint.  
The court of appeals subsequently denied Grove’s motion for findings of fact and 
conclusions of law on the court’s dismissal. 
 
On appeal, we reversed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing 
Grove’s procedendo claim for journalization and remanded that portion of the 
cause to the court of appeals for further proceedings.  State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel 
(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 325, 691 N.E.2d 275.  We affirmed the remainder of the 
judgment of the court of appeals.  Id. 
 
After remand, Judge Nadel moved to dismiss Grove’s remaining 
procedendo claim based on mootness.  Attached to the motion was Judge Nadel’s 
order denying Grove’s motion for a transcript, which was journalized on May 5, 
1998.  In June 1998, the court of appeals granted Judge Nadel’s motion and 
dismissed Grove’s procedendo action. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
 
2
__________________ 
 
Mark Earl Grove, pro se. 
 
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald W. 
Springman, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Grove asserts that the court of appeals erred in granting Judge 
Nadel’s second motion to dismiss because it was contrary to this court’s mandate 
and his trial court transmitted the wrong transcript in his appeal of right.  For the 
following reasons, however, Grove’s claims lack merit. 
 
First, the court correctly dismissed Grove’s procedendo action on remand 
from this court because Judge Nadel had already performed the requested act, i.e., 
he journalized his January 1997 decision denying Grove’s motion for a copy of his 
transcript.  Neither procedendo nor mandamus will compel the performance of a 
duty that has already been performed.  Martin v. Judges of the Lucas Cty. Court of 
Common Pleas (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 71, 72, 552 N.E.2d 906, 908.  The court of 
appeals appropriately took judicial notice that Grove’s procedendo action was 
moot based on the journalized entry submitted by Judge Nadel in his second 
motion to dismiss.  See State ex rel. Konoff v. Shafer (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 294, 
295, 685 N.E.2d 1248, 1249. 
 
Second, Grove’s claim that Judge Nadel erred in denying his motion for a 
copy of his trial transcript should be raised in an appeal from that journalized entry 
rather than in procedendo.  Procedendo will not issue when the relator has an 
adequate legal remedy.  State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 64, 65, 
671 N.E.2d 24, 26; State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 158, 164, 
656 N.E.2d 1288, 1294. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
 
3
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.