Case Title: State ex rel. Hillman v. Holbrook

Citation: 2011-Ohio-3090

Docket Number: 20110427

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-06-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Hillman v. Holbrook, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-3090.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-3090 
THE STATE EX REL. HILLMAN, APPELLANT, v. HOLBROOK, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Hillman v. Holbrook,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-3090.] 
Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of procedendo — Acts requested 
had already been performed — Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2011-0427 — Submitted June 21, 2011 — Decided June 29, 2011.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 10AP-552. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the writ of 
procedendo of appellant, Robert L. Hillman, to compel appellee, Franklin County 
Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael J. Holbrook, to rule on certain motions in 
Hillman v. Edwards, Franklin C.P. No. 09CVA09-13707.  Judge Holbrook ruled 
on the motions on September 9, 2010.  His performance of the acts requested by 
Hillman rendered his procedendo claim moot.  See State ex rel. Howard v. Skow, 
102 Ohio St.3d 423, 2004-Ohio-3652, 811 N.E.2d 1128, ¶ 9. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} Moreover, the court of appeals did not err in denying Hillman’s 
motion for an order for its magistrate to show cause why she should not be held in 
contempt of court by granting Judge Holbrook’s motion for leave to file his 
answer to Hillman’s complaint in procedendo instanter.  There is no evidence that 
the magistrate violated any court order in her ruling.  And even had the court of 
appeals determined that the judge did not submit a timely response to the 
complaint, a default judgment in Hillman’s favor on his procedendo claim would 
not have been appropriate.  See State ex rel. Winnick v. Gansheimer, 112 Ohio 
St.3d 149, 2006-Ohio-6521, 858 N.E.2d 409, ¶ 7; Civ.R. 55(D) (a default 
judgment may be entered against the state only if the “claimant establishes his 
claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court”). 
{¶ 3} We deny Hillman’s motion to proceed to judgment pursuant to 
S.Ct.Prac.R. 6.7, because although appellee failed to file a timely merit brief, 
reversal of the court of appeals’ judgment is not warranted because Hillman’s 
brief does not “reasonably appear[] to sustain reversal.”  See State ex rel. Keith v. 
McMonagle, 106 Ohio St.3d 61, 2005-Ohio-3669, 831 N.E.2d 433, fn. 1. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Robert L. Hillman, pro se. 
______________________