Title: State ex rel. Ames v. Pokorny

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Ames v. Pokorny, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2070.] 
 
 
 
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-2070 
THE STATE EX REL. AMES v. POKORNY, JUDGE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Ames v. Pokorny, Slip Opinion No.  
2021-Ohio-2070.] 
Procedendo—Open Meetings Act—Writ of procedendo will not issue to compel 
performance of a duty that the judge has already performed—Cause 
dismissed. 
(No. 2020-1465—Submitted April 27, 2021—Decided June 23, 2021.) 
IN PROCEDENDO. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator, Brian M. Ames, seeks a writ of procedendo ordering 
respondent, Judge Thomas J. Pokorny, to rule on Ames’s motions to dismiss 
counterclaims in consolidated cases pending in the Portage County Court of 
Common Pleas.  Because Judge Pokorny has ruled on the motions, we dismiss this 
case as moot. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2
{¶ 2} In 2019, Ames brought four actions in the Portage County Court of 
Common Pleas against the Portage County Solid Waste Management District (“the 
district”) and the Portage County Board of Commissioners (“the board”)—case 
Nos. 2019CV00384, 2019CV00621, 2019CV00653, and 2019CV00808.  Each 
complaint alleges violations of the Open Meetings Act, R.C. 121.22, related to the 
public business of the district conducted by the board.  Judge Pokorny was assigned 
to preside over each of these cases after the judge initially assigned to the cases 
recused herself. 
{¶ 3} On October 10, 2019, Judge Pokorny consolidated case Nos. 
2019CV00384, 2019CV00621, and 2019CV00653.  On January 8, 2020, the 
district and the board filed amended counterclaims for declaratory judgment in the 
three consolidated cases and in case No. 2019CV00808.  On January 14, 2020, 
Ames filed motions to dismiss both counterclaims. 
{¶ 4} Ames commenced this action on December 3, 2020, seeking a writ of 
procedendo to compel Judge Pokorny to rule on his motions to dismiss the 
counterclaims of the district and the board.  Ames alleged that his motions to 
dismiss had been pending for ten months.  On February 10, 2021, we dismissed 
Ames’s action as to case No. 2019CV00808; we sua sponte granted an alternative 
writ as to the three remaining consolidated cases and set a schedule for the 
submission of evidence and briefing.  161 Ohio St.3d 1426, 2021-Ohio-303, 162 
N.E.3d 809. 
{¶ 5} Ames has submitted as evidence a certified copy of a judgment entry 
signed by Judge Pokorny in the consolidated cases, which states: “Relator’s Motion 
to Dismiss Respondents’ Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment is DENIED.”  
Also submitted as evidence is a certified copy of the docket in case No. 
2019CV00384—the case number under which Judge Pokorny ordered all 
documents to be filed in the consolidated cases.  The docket shows that an entry 
denying Ames’s counterclaims was filed on December 29, 2020. 
January Term, 2021 
 
3
{¶ 6} 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, Ames must establish (1) a clear legal right to 
require Judge Pokorny to proceed, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of Judge 
Pokorny to proceed, and (3) the absence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary 
course of the law.  See id. 
{¶ 7} A writ of procedendo will not issue to compel the performance of a 
duty that the judge has already performed.  State ex rel. Morgan v. Fais, 146 Ohio 
St.3d 428, 2016-Ohio-1564, 57 N.E.3d 1140, ¶ 4.  The evidence shows that Judge 
Pokorny has already denied the motions for which Ames seeks to compel a ruling 
in procedendo.  Accordingly, we dismiss this action as moot. 
Cause dismissed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, 
and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
 
Brian M. Ames, pro se. 
 
Thomas J. Pokorny, pro se. 
_________________