Case Title: State ex rel. Thomas v. Nestor

Citation: 2021-Ohio-672

Docket Number: 2020-0846

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2021-03-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Thomas v. Nestor, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-672.] 
 
 
 
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. 2021-OHIO-672 
THE STATE EX REL. THOMAS, APPELLANT, v. NESTOR, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Thomas v. Nestor, Slip Opinion No.  
2021-Ohio-672.] 
Mandamus—Procedendo—A court need not grant extraordinary relief in 
mandamus when the relator would receive no benefit from such an order—
Judge’s failure to direct clerk to serve judgment entry on parties under 
Civ.R. 58(B) is not a refusal or delay in proceeding to judgment—Court of 
appeals’ judgment of dismissal affirmed. 
(No. 2020-0846—Submitted January 12, 2021—Decided March 11, 2021.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-200137. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Lewis Thomas III, appeals the First District Court of 
Appeals’ judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of procedendo and/or 
mandamus.  Thomas sought an extraordinary writ to compel the trial court’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2
compliance with Civ.R. 58(B).  We affirm, albeit for reasons different than those 
given by the court of appeals. 
I.  Background 
{¶ 2} Thomas is incarcerated at the Allen-Oakwood Correctional 
Institution.  He commenced this action on March 17, 2020, seeking a writ of 
procedendo and/or mandamus to compel Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas 
Judge Steven Martin to serve upon him a February 25, 2019 judgment entry in 
which Thomas’s motion to correct his sentencing entry was denied.  The judgment 
entry does not contain language directing the clerk of courts to serve it upon the 
parties.  Thomas contends that the delay in serving him with formal notice prevents 
him from appealing the judgment entry.  See State ex rel. Daniels v. Russo, 156 
Ohio St.3d 143, 2018-Ohio-5194, 123 N.E.3d 1011, ¶ 9-12 (an order denying a 
motion for a new sentencing entry is a final, appealable order). 
{¶ 3} Appellee, Judge Terry Nestor, who succeeded Judge Martin, filed a 
motion to dismiss Thomas’s petition.  The court of appeals substituted Judge Nestor 
for Judge Martin as the respondent and granted the motion.  Thomas appealed to 
this court as of right. 
II.  Analysis 
{¶ 4} This court reviews de novo a lower court’s dismissal of a petition for 
extraordinary-writ relief.  State ex rel. Zander v. Judge of Summit Cty. Common 
Pleas Court, 156 Ohio St.3d 466, 2019-Ohio-1704, 129 N.E.3d 401, ¶ 4.  Dismissal 
is appropriate if it appears beyond doubt from the petition, after presuming all 
factual allegations to be true, that the relator can prove no set of facts warranting 
extraordinary relief.  Id. 
A.  Mandamus 
{¶ 5} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Thomas must establish a clear 
legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of Judge Nestor to 
provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  
January Term, 2021 
 
3
See id.  Thomas sought a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Nestor to comply with 
Civ.R. 58(B), which requires (1) a trial court to direct the clerk of the court to serve 
all parties with notice of a judgment and (2) the clerk to formally serve the parties.  
Because Civ.R. 58(B) imposes the duty of serving the parties upon the clerk of the 
court, the court of appeals held that Thomas failed to show that Judge Nestor had a 
clear legal duty to serve the February 25, 2019 judgment entry. 
{¶ 6} The court of appeals’ reasoning is flawed because it misstates the 
relief Thomas sought in his petition.  Thomas did not seek a writ compelling Judge 
Nestor to serve the judgment entry on him.  Rather, Thomas sought a writ 
compelling Judge Nestor to direct the clerk of the court to serve the judgment entry, 
as Civ.R. 58(B) requires.  See Clermont Cty. Transp. Improvement Dist. v. Gator 
Milford, L.L.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 542, 2015-Ohio-241, 26 N.E.3d 806, ¶ 7 (applying 
Civ.R. 58(B) to a final, appealable order other than a final judgment).  The court of 
appeals was therefore incorrect to dismiss Thomas’s petition on the basis that he 
had not alleged a clear legal duty on the part of Judge Nestor. 
{¶ 7} However, we will not reverse a correct judgment simply because it is 
based on an erroneous rationale.  State ex rel. Miller v. Bower, 156 Ohio St.3d 455, 
2019-Ohio-1623, 129 N.E.3d 389, ¶ 14.  Further, this court “review[s] a judgment 
of the court of appeals in a mandamus action filed in that court ‘as if the action had 
been filed originally in [this court].’ ”  State ex rel. Dynamic Industries, Inc. v. 
Cincinnati, 147 Ohio St.3d 422, 2016-Ohio-7663, 66 N.E.3d 734, ¶ 7, quoting State 
ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 164, 228 N.E.2d 631 (1967).  
And in this case, Thomas’s mandamus petition was properly dismissed. 
{¶ 8} Thomas makes clear that the purpose of his mandamus petition is to 
secure service of Judge Nestor’s judgment entry so that he can appeal it.  But 
Thomas’s requested relief is not necessary to effectuate that purpose.  He does not 
need to be served formally by the clerk under Civ.R. 58(B) in order to appeal a 
final, appealable order.  The lack of service by the clerk under Civ.R. 58(B) means 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4
simply that Thomas’s time for commencing an appeal has not begun to run.  See In 
re Anderson, 92 Ohio St.3d 63, 67, 748 N.E.2d 67 (2001).  Thomas can still timely 
file a notice of appeal from the judgment entry.  See id.; see also Whitehall ex rel. 
Fenessy v. Bambi Motel, Inc., 131 Ohio App.3d 734, 741, 723 N.E.2d 633 (10th 
Dist.1998) (holding an appeal to be timely when the trial court never instructed the 
clerk to send notice to the parties under Civ.R. 58(B) and no notices were sent). 
{¶ 9} Granting Thomas his requested writ of mandamus is therefore of no 
benefit to him.  And a court need not grant extraordinary relief in mandamus when 
the relator would receive no benefit from such an order.  See State ex rel. McCuller 
v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 143 Ohio St.3d 130, 2015-Ohio-1563, 
34 N.E.3d 905, ¶ 18.  The court of appeals properly dismissed Thomas’s mandamus 
petition. 
B.  Procedendo 
{¶ 10} Thomas’s petition also sought a writ of procedendo to compel Judge 
Nestor to order the clerk of courts to serve Thomas with the February 25, 2019 
judgment entry.  The court of appeals did not address Thomas’s alternative 
requested relief in procedendo.  Nonetheless, dismissal of Thomas’s procedendo 
claim is also proper. 
{¶ 11} A writ of procedendo will issue when a court has refused to enter 
judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment.  State ex rel. 
Culgan v. Collier, 135 Ohio St.3d 436, 2013-Ohio-1762, 988 N.E.2d 564, ¶ 7.  To 
be entitled to a writ of procedendo, Thomas must establish (1) a clear legal right to 
require Judge Nestor to proceed, (2) a clear legal duty requiring Judge Nestor to 
proceed, and (3) the absence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the 
law.  Id. 
{¶ 12} In this case, there is neither a clear legal right nor a clear legal duty 
enforceable in procedendo.  Judge Nestor’s failure to direct the clerk to serve the 
judgment entry upon the parties under Civ.R. 58(B) is not a refusal or delay in 
January Term, 2021 
 
5
proceeding to judgment.  Judge Nestor’s judgment entry is valid regardless of 
whether the clerk served Thomas with notice of it.  See Civ.R. 58(B) (“The failure 
of the clerk to serve notice does not affect the validity of the judgment or the 
running of the time for appeal except as provided in App.R. 4(A)”).  Thomas’s 
petition therefore fails to allege a viable claim in procedendo. 
III.  Conclusion 
{¶ 13} Although the court of appeals’ rationale for dismissing Thomas’s 
petition was not correct, its judgment dismissing the petition was.  We therefore 
affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and 
BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
FISCHER, J., not participating. 
_________________ 
 
Lewis Thomas III, pro se. 
 
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. 
Heenan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_________________