Case Title: State ex rel. Whiteside v. Fais

Citation: 2001-Ohio-97

Docket Number: 20001957

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-05-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Whiteside v. Fais, 91 Ohio St.3d 463, 2001-Ohio-97.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. WHITESIDE, APPELLANT, v. FAIS, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Whiteside v. Fais (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 463.] 
Mandamus sought to compel common pleas court judge to rule on relator’s 
petition for postconviction relief — Court of appeals’ denial of writ 
affirmed. 
(No. 00-1957 — Submitted March 27, 2001 — Decided May 23, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 99AP-1482. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In 1986, appellant, Norman V. Whiteside, was convicted of 
two counts of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder, and sentenced to prison.  
On appeal, the conviction was affirmed.  State v. Whiteside (Feb. 10, 1987), 
Franklin App. No. 86AP-325, unreported, 1987 WL 6532.  Whiteside 
subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief. 
 
In December 1999, Whiteside filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals 
for Franklin County for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Franklin County 
Court of Common Pleas Judge David Fais, to rule on his postconviction-relief 
petition.  Whiteside also filed an affidavit of indigency in which he stated 
generally that he could not “afford the costs associated” with the case, that he was 
“indigent according to the law,” and that he had “no properties or securities to 
oblige such costs.”  A court-appointed magistrate denied Whiteside’s motion to 
proceed in forma pauperis. 
 
In January 2000, Judge Fais moved for summary judgment, attaching to 
his motion a copy of his judgment denying Whiteside’s petition for 
postconviction relief.  The magistrate recommended that the court of appeals 
grant the motion and deny the writ.  Whiteside filed objections to the magistrate’s 
decision in which he asserted that his request for in forma pauperis status had 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
been erroneously denied and that his mother had paid the filing fee. Whiteside 
subsequently filed supplemental objections in which he requested that the court 
convert his mandamus action to a prohibition action.  Although his request to 
convert was not entirely clear, it appears that Whiteside claimed that either double 
jeopardy considerations or res judicata barred Judge Fais from ruling against his 
postconviction claim.  In September 2000, the court of appeals overruled 
Whiteside’s objections, adopted the magistrate’s decision, and denied the writ. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon Whiteside’s appeal of right. 
 
Whiteside asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ 
because Judge Fais erroneously ruled on his petition for postconviction relief and 
his mandamus claim should have been converted to a prohibition action.  
Whiteside’s assertions lack merit.  He specifically requested in his complaint that 
Judge Fais rule on his petition for postconviction relief, and Judge Fais did 
exactly what Whiteside requested by ruling on the petition.  Mandamus will not 
issue to compel an act that has already been performed.  State ex rel. Smith v. 
Fuerst (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 456, 457, 732 N.E.2d 983, 984.  Any error in the 
ruling could have been challenged by appeal. 
 
In addition, the court of appeals did not err in failing to convert the 
mandamus action to one in prohibition.  Double jeopardy claims are not 
cognizable in prohibition.  State ex rel. White v. Junkin (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 335, 
338, 686 N.E.2d 267, 269-270.  And  “ ‘res judicata is not a basis for prohibition 
because it does not divest a trial court of jurisdiction to decide its applicability and 
it can be raised adequately by postjudgment appeal.’ ”  State ex rel. Miller v. Reed 
(1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 159, 160, 718 N.E.2d 428, 429, quoting State ex rel. 
Soukup v. Celebrezze (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 549, 550, 700 N.E.2d 1278, 1280. 
 
Whiteside further claims that the court of appeals erred in applying the in 
forma pauperis filing requirements of R.C. 2969.22, which applies to inmates 
filing civil actions against government entities or employees.  But the court of 
January Term, 2001 
3 
appeals did not specify that its denial of in forma pauperis status to Whiteside was 
based on R.C. 2969.22.  Therefore, we need not consider the applicability of R.C. 
2969.22 to Whiteside’s mandamus action.  See State ex rel. Thomas v. Ghee 
(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 191, 193, 690 N.E.2d 6, 7. 
 
In fact, the denial of in forma pauperis status to Whiteside was justified 
because of his failure to comply with Loc.App.R. 12(B) of the court of appeals, 
which provides that “[a] party claiming to be indigent shall file with the complaint 
a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis supported by an affidavit 
showing indigency and indicating the party’s actual financial condition and the 
disposition of any request for similar leave sought in any other court.”  (Emphasis 
added.)  Whiteside’s affidavit of indigency neither indicated his “actual financial 
condition” nor included the “disposition of any request for similar leave sought in 
any other court.”  Instead, Whiteside relied on general assertions of indigency. 
 
Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals did not err in denying the writ 
and Whiteside’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.  Accordingly, we affirm 
the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Norman V. Whiteside, pro se. 
 
Ron O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Richard F. 
Hoffman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
__________________