Title: State ex rel. Howard v. Skow

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[CITE AS STATE EX REL. HOWARD V. SKOW, 102 OHIO ST.3D 423, 2004-OHIO-3652.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. HOWARD, APPELLANT, v. SKOW, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Howard v. Skow, 102 Ohio St.3d 423, 2004-Ohio-3652.] 
Complaint for writ of procedendo to compel common pleas court judge to act on 
relator’s pending motions — Court of appeals’ denial of writ affirmed, 
when — Writ of procedendo will not issue to compel the performance of 
a duty that has already been performed. 
(No. 2004-0529 — Submitted June 29, 2004 — Decided July 28, 2004.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-04-1031, 2004-Ohio-
1337. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In February 2004, appellant, Gregory T. Howard, filed a complaint 
for a writ of procedendo in the Court of Appeals for Lucas County against 
appellee, Lucas County Court of Common Pleas Judge William J. Skow.  Howard 
requested the writ to compel Judge Skow to proceed to judgment on various 
motions filed by Howard in a common pleas court case.  Howard further 
requested a writ of mandamus compelling Judge Skow to order the Industrial 
Commission of Ohio and the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation to vacate their 
previous orders and find in favor of Howard on his workers’ compensation claims 
because of alleged misconduct by opposing counsel in the common pleas court 
case. 
{¶2} 
On February 18, 2004, the court of appeals denied Howard’s 
request for a writ of mandamus ordering the commission and the bureau to vacate 
previously issued orders.  On Howard’s remaining claim, the court of appeals 
issued an alternative writ and ordered that Judge Skow “within 14 days of the date 
he is served with this alternative writ, either do the act requested by relator in his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
petition or show cause why he does not do so by filing an answer or a motion to 
dismiss [Howard’s] petition.”  Judge Skow was served with the alternative writ on 
February 19. 
{¶3} 
On March 3, 2004, Judge Skow entered a judgment dismissing 
Howard’s common pleas court case and denying all of Howard’s pending 
motions.  Judge Skow filed the judgment entry in the court of appeals on March 9.  
On March 4, 2004, Howard requested that the court of appeals issue a peremptory 
writ based on his claim that Judge Skow had not acted on his pending motions in 
his common pleas court case or responded to his writ action within the period 
specified by the court of appeals. 
{¶4} 
On March 16, 2004, the court of appeals denied the writ on the 
basis that Judge Skow’s March 3 judgment satisfied the alternative writ. 
{¶5} 
In his sole proposition of law, Howard asserts that the court of 
appeals abused its discretion by not granting a peremptory writ of mandamus, 
because Judge Skow did not file his March 3, 2004 judgment in the court of 
appeals until March 9, which exceeded the 14-day answer period set forth in the 
alternative writ.  Howard claims that the court of appeals thus violated R.C. 
2731.10, which provides, “If no answer is made to an alternative writ of 
mandamus, a peremptory mandamus must be allowed against the defendant.”  
See, e.g., State ex rel. Papp v. Norton (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 162, 610 N.E.2d 979. 
{¶6} 
For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
{¶7} 
First, although the court of appeals cited R.C. 2731.10 in its 
alternative writ, an analysis of the writ and Howard’s complaint establishes that 
Howard’s mandamus claim — tied to his allegations of ethical misconduct by 
opposing counsel in his common pleas court case — had been dismissed and was 
not the subject of the alternative writ.  The alternative writ instead issued solely 
on Howard’s procedendo claim — to compel Judge Skow to rule on his pending 
January Term, 2004 
3 
motions in the common pleas court case.  Because R.C. 2731.10 applies only to 
mandamus actions, it did not govern Howard’s remaining procedendo claim or the 
alternative writ that the court issued on that claim. 
{¶8} 
Second, in its alternative writ, the court of appeals afforded Judge 
Skow the option of ruling on Howard’s motions within the specified 14-day 
period.  Judge Skow complied with the court’s alternative writ by ruling on the 
motions on March 3. 
{¶9} 
Finally, in determining actions involving extraordinary writs, a 
court is not limited to considering the facts and circumstances at the time that the 
writ was requested but can consider the facts and conditions at the time that 
entitlement to the writ is considered.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Wilson v. Sunderland 
(2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 548, 549, 721 N.E.2d 1055.  The court of appeals correctly 
considered Judge Skow’s performance of the requested acts, which rendered 
Howard’s procedendo claim moot.  State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel (1998), 84 Ohio 
St.3d 252, 253, 703 N.E.2d 304 (a writ of procedendo will not issue to compel the 
performance of a duty that has already been performed). 
{¶10} Therefore, because the court of appeals correctly denied the 
requested relief, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
 Gregory T. Howard, pro se. 
 
 Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and John A. Borell, 
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
__________________