Case Title: State ex rel. Roberts v. Hatheway

Citation: 2021-Ohio-4097

Docket Number: 2021-0771

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2021-11-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Roberts v. Hatheway, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-4097.] 
 
 
 
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-4097 
THE STATE EX REL. ROBERTS, APPELLANT, v. HATHEWAY,1 JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Roberts v. Hatheway, Slip Opinion No.  
2021-Ohio-4097.] 
Mandamus—Procedendo—Petition for a writ of mandamus and/or procedendo 
seeking to compel a trial-court judge to rule on a motion was properly 
dismissed by the appellate court because the judge had already issued an 
entry dismissing the motion on res judicata grounds and petitioner had an 
adequate remedy at law through direct appeal of the motion’s dismissal—
Court of appeals judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2021-0771—Submitted October 5, 2021—Decided November 23, 2021.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-2100242. 
__________________ 
 
 
 
1.  Judge Alison Hatheway succeeded Judge Charles Kubicki Jr., who was originally named as the 
appellee.  Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.06(B), Judge Hatheway is automatically substituted for former 
Judge Kubicki as a party to this action. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Mallon Roberts, appeals the judgment of the First District 
Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus and/or a writ of 
procedendo ordering appellee, Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge 
Alison Hatheway, to rule on his jurisdictional motion.  We affirm. 
{¶ 2} In June 2020, Roberts filed in the Hamilton County Court of Common 
Pleas a “Motion Challenging Subject Matter Jurisdiction of Trial Judge Pursuant to 
Sup.R. 4, Sup.R. 36, Hamilton County Local Rule 7(E), O.R.C. 2701.031.” 
{¶ 3} In April 2021, Roberts filed a petition in the court of appeals seeking 
a writ of mandamus and/or a writ of procedendo to compel Judge Hatheway to rule 
on his motion.  Eight days after Roberts filed his petition with the court of appeals, 
Judge Hatheway issued an entry dismissing Roberts’s motion on res judicata 
grounds. 
{¶ 4} In May 2021, the court of appeals dismissed Roberts’s petition, 
determining that the procedendo claim was moot in light of Judge Hatheway’s entry 
and that a writ of mandamus was not the proper remedy to redress Roberts’s alleged 
injury.  Roberts then filed this appeal. 
{¶ 5} “A writ of procedendo is appropriate when a court has either refused 
to render a judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment.”  State 
ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530, 532, 705 N.E.2d 1227 (1999).  An 
action in procedendo becomes moot when the court performs the duty requested.  
See State ex rel. Morgan v. Fais, 146 Ohio St.3d 428, 2016-Ohio-1564, 57 N.E.3d 
1140, ¶ 4.  Because the trial court has ruled on Roberts’s motion, the court of 
appeals properly dismissed the procedendo claim as moot. 
{¶ 6} Roberts’s request for a writ of mandamus is controlled by similar 
logic.  Even assuming that a writ of mandamus could provide relief beyond that 
afforded by a writ of procedendo, a “writ of mandamus will not issue to compel an 
act already performed.”  State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of 
January Term, 2021 
 
3
Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 279, 658 N.E.2d 273 (1996).  Because the trial 
court has performed the act requested by Roberts, mandamus cannot lie. 
{¶ 7} To the extent Roberts attempts to use his petition to argue the merits 
of his underlying jurisdictional motion, he has an adequate remedy by way of 
appeal to address any alleged error in the trial court’s ruling on that motion.  See 
State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger, 99 Ohio St.3d 303, 2003-Ohio-3631, 791 N.E.2d 
459, ¶ 8 (“neither a writ of procedendo nor a writ of mandamus will issue if an 
adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law”). 
{¶ 8} For the foregoing reasons, we 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. 
_________________ 
 
Mallon Roberts, pro se. 
 
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. 
Adams, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_________________