Title: State ex rel. Keith v. McMonagle

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Keith v. McMonagle, 106 Ohio St.3d 61, 2005-Ohio-3669.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. KEITH, APPELLANT, v. MCMONAGLE,  
JUDGE, ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Keith v. McMonagle, 
106 Ohio St.3d 61, 2005-Ohio-3669.] 
Mandamus — Mandamus does not lie to compel act already performed — Claim 
of improper assignment of judge could have been raised in direct appeal 
— Parties may be dropped or added by court on its own motion. 
(No. 2005-0255 — Submitted June 15, 2005 — Decided August 3, 2005.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 83961. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment denying a writ of mandamus to 
compel a trial court judge to rule on certain motions in three criminal cases. 
{¶ 2} On December 18, 2003, appellant, Jeffrey C. Keith, an inmate at 
Lorain Correctional Institution, filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for 
Cuyahoga County.  Keith sought a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, 
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Richard McMonagle, to rule on 
certain motions filed by Keith in three criminal cases in the common pleas court.  
Keith claimed that the common pleas court judges presiding over those criminal 
cases, appellees Judge Daniel Gaul and Judge Joseph Cirigliano, lacked 
jurisdiction to rule on his motions because they had been improperly appointed.  
Judge McMonagle moved for summary judgment because the criminal cases were 
assigned to Judge Gaul and Judge Cirigliano, not to him. 
{¶ 3} On May 18, 2004, the court of appeals issued an entry finding that 
Judge McMonagle was not the assigned judge in the underlying criminal cases 
and that Judge Gaul and Judge Cirigliano were the properly assigned judges.  The 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
court of appeals sua sponte added Judge Gaul and Judge Cirigliano as respondents 
and invited the prosecuting attorney “to submit another motion for summary 
judgment, demonstrating that the subject motions have been resolved by the 
proper judges.” 
{¶ 4} Keith appealed the entry, and we dismissed it because it did not 
constitute a final appealable order.  State ex rel. Keith v. McMonagle, 103 Ohio 
St.3d 430, 2004-Ohio-5580, 816 N.E.2d 597. 
{¶ 5} Judge Gaul and Judge Cirigliano moved for summary judgment on 
Keith’s mandamus claim because in June 2004, they denied the motions for which 
he requested rulings.  In January 2005, the court of appeals granted the judges’ 
motions and denied the writ. 
{¶ 6} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.  Insofar as Keith 
requested rulings on his motions, he has now received them.  See State ex rel. 
Natl. City Bank v. Maloney, 103 Ohio St.3d 93, 2004-Ohio-4437, 814 N.E.2d 58, 
¶ 10, quoting State ex rel. Chapnick v. E. Cleveland City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. 
(2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 449, 451, 755 N.E.2d 883 (“ ‘Mandamus does not lie to 
compel an act that has already been performed’ ”). 
{¶ 7} Moreover, he has or had an adequate remedy by appeal from these 
rulings to raise his claim that Judge Gaul and Judge Cirigliano were improperly 
assigned to his criminal cases.  See State ex rel. Key v. Spicer (2001), 91 Ohio 
St.3d 469, 746 N.E.2d 1119 (“a claim of improper assignment of a judge can 
generally be adequately raised by way of appeal”); State ex rel. Berger v. 
McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 30, 6 OBR 50, 451 N.E.2d 225 (mandamus 
and prohibition are not substitutes for appeal to contest alleged improper 
assignment of judge). 
{¶ 8} Finally, the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion by adding 
Judge Gaul and Judge Cirigliano to the case after Judge McMonagle introduced 
evidence that they were the judges assigned to Keith’s criminal cases.  See Civ.R. 
January Term, 2005 
3 
21 (“Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any 
party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are 
just”). 
{¶ 9} Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals did not err in denying 
the writ of mandamus.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals.1 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jeffrey C. Keith, pro se. 
_____________________ 
                                                 
1.  Keith moves for default judgment based on appellees’ failure to file a merit brief.  We deny the 
motion because Keith’s brief does not “reasonably appear[ ] to sustain reversal.”  S.Ct.Prac.R. 
VI(7); see, also, State ex rel. White v. Goldsberry (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 153, 155, 707 N.E.2d 496, 
fn. 1.