Title: State ex rel. Halder v. Fuerst

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cited as State ex rel. Halder v. Fuerst, 118 Ohio St.3d 142, 2008-Ohio-1968.] 
 
 
STATE EX REL. HALDER, APPELLANT, v. FUERST, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Halder v. Fuerst, 118 Ohio St.3d 142, 2008-Ohio-1968.] 
Appeal from judgment denying writ of mandamus to compel a clerk of courts to 
serve notice of trial court’s denial of motion for relief from judgment — 
Court of appeals’ denial of writ affirmed — Clerk served notice at last 
known address for appellant. 
(No. 2007-2285 ─ Submitted April 23, 2008 ─ Decided April 30, 2008.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 90442, 2007-Ohio-5938. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment denying a writ of mandamus to 
compel a clerk of courts to serve notice of a trial court’s denial of a motion for 
relief from judgment on the party filing the motion.  Because the clerk had 
already served notice of the judgment on the party and the party had an adequate 
remedy at law to raise his claim that he did not receive notice of the judgment, we 
affirm. 
{¶ 2} Appellant, Biswanath Halder, filed a motion for relief from 
judgment in Halder v. Miller, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-01-441308.  On November 
29, 2006, the common pleas court denied the motion.  The clerk of the common 
pleas court mailed notice of the judgment to Halder at the last address he had 
given the court ─ 1918 Coltman Road, Cleveland, Ohio.  At that time, however, 
Halder was incarcerated in Mansfield Correctional Institution, where he had been 
since June 2006.  Halder subsequently received a certified copy of the November 
2006 common pleas court judgment denying his motion from the clerk in April 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
2007.  In that same month, Halder requested that the clerk’s office update its 
records to reflect his prison address. 
{¶ 3} Halder then filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for 
Cuyahoga County for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County 
Clerk of Courts Gerald E. Fuerst, to serve him with the notice of the November 
2006 judgment denying his motion for relief from judgment.  Fuerst filed a 
combined motion to dismiss and for summary judgment.  The court of appeals 
granted the motion for summary judgment and denied the writ. 
{¶ 4} Halder claims that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ.  
For the reasons that follow, Halder’s claim lacks merit. 
{¶ 5} First, “[m]andamus will not issue to compel an act that had already 
been performed.”  State ex rel. Madsen v. Foley Jones, 106 Ohio St.3d 178, 2005-
Ohio-4381, 833 N.E.2d 291, ¶ 11.  The clerk properly served Halder with a copy 
of the common pleas court’s judgment denying Halder’s motion for relief from 
judgment by mailing it to the last address that Halder had provided to the clerk.  
See State ex rel. Hughes v. Celeste (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 429, 431, 619 N.E.2d 
412 (“Civ.R. 58(B) directs the clerk of court to serve the parties with notice of a 
judgment, within three days of its entry upon the journal, in a manner prescribed 
by Civ.R. 5(B)”); Civ.R. 5(B) (“Service upon the attorney or party shall be made 
by * * * mailing it to the last known address of the person to be served * * *.  
Service by mail is complete upon mailing”).  Because the clerk properly served 
Halder with the judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B) and 5(B), a writ of mandamus 
will not issue to compel service, since it already has been completed.  See State ex 
rel. Smith v. Fuerst (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 456, 457, 732 N.E.2d 983. 
{¶ 6} Second, a “party bears the burden of formally notifying the court 
of a change of address; the clerk is not charged with the duty of perusing the 
record to ensure that a party’s mailing address has not changed.”  Robb v. 
Smallwood, 165 Ohio App.3d 385, 2005-Ohio-5863, 846 N.E.2d 878, ¶ 11.  This 
January Term, 2008 
3 
obligation applies equally to pro se litigants like Halder.  Id.; see also Marshall v. 
Staudt (Feb. 1, 1999), Stark App. No. 1998CA00177, 1999 WL 100373, * 3.  
“Given that informing the trial court of a new address is relatively simple, it 
follows that the burden of satisfying this requirement cannot be shifted to the 
opposing party or the trial court.”  Nalbach v. Cacioppo (Jan. 11, 2002), Trumbull 
App. No. 2001-T-0062, 2002 WL 32704, * 6.  Halder failed to satisfy this burden 
here. 
{¶ 7} Finally, even if the clerk had not properly served notice of the 
judgment on Halder, he is not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in 
mandamus, because he has or had adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law 
by delayed appeal and motion for relief from judgment to raise such a claim.  
State ex rel. Bortoli v. Dinkelacker, 105 Ohio St.3d 133, 2005-Ohio-779, 823 
N.E.2d 448, ¶ 3; State ex rel. Ahmed v. Costine, 103 Ohio St.3d 166, 2004-Ohio-
4756, 814 N.E.2d 865, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 8} Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly denied the 
writ.  Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Biswanath Halder, pro se. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
Frederick W. Whatley, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________