Title: State ex rel. Evans v. Mohr

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. Evans v. Mohr, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-5089.] 
 
 
 
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. 2018-OHIO-5089 
THE STATE EX REL. EVANS, APPELLANT, v. MOHR, DIR., APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Evans v. Mohr, Slip Opinion No.  
2018-Ohio-5089.] 
Mandamus—Writ will not issue to compel act already performed—Court of 
appeals’ dismissal of complaint affirmed. 
(No. 2018-0452—Submitted June 26, 2018—Decided December 20, 2018.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 
No. 17AP-571, 2018-Ohio-935. 
_______________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, William H. Evans Jr., appeals the judgment of the Tenth 
District Court of Appeals dismissing his complaint for a writ of mandamus against 
appellee, Gary Mohr, the director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and 
Correction (“DRC”).  We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
I. 
Background 
{¶ 2} Evans is an inmate at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center.  On 
August 9, 2017, Evans filed a complaint requesting a writ of mandamus to order 
DRC to remove a federal detainer that Evans alleged was erroneously placed on his 
prison record.  After some investigation into the matter, DRC removed the detainer.  
 
Mohr filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that DRC had already 
removed the detainer from Evans’s record.  Approximately one week after DRC 
filed the motion to dismiss, Evans filed a motion for declaratory judgment under 
the same case number that was assigned to the complaint for a writ of mandamus.  
A Tenth District magistrate recommended dismissing the complaint and waiving 
the costs because DRC’s actions had rendered the case moot.  Evans filed 
objections in which he argued that a declaratory judgment should have been granted 
preventing placement of future detainers.  Next, Evans filed a motion for summary 
judgment in which he again requested that the declaratory judgment be granted and 
that he be awarded “monetary damages as allowable by law.” 
{¶ 3} The court of appeals dismissed Evans’s complaint as moot and denied 
Evans’s subsequent motions. 
II. 
Legal Analysis 
A. 
Mandamus to compel removal of detainer 
{¶ 4} “A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel an act already 
performed.”  State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 
74 Ohio St.3d 278, 279, 658 N.E.2d 723 (1996).  Mohr’s motion to dismiss 
established that the relief that Evans sought—removal of “all traces” of the federal 
detainer placed on his prison record—has been provided.  And Evans does not 
dispute that DRC improperly or erroneously removed the federal detainer.  Indeed, 
no case in controversy exists anymore in Evans’s case.  And when there is “no case 
in controversy, there will be no appellate review.”  Adkins v. McFaul, 76 Ohio St.3d 
350, 350, 667 N.E.2d 1171 (1996). 
January Term, 2018 
 
3
{¶ 5} Typically, “courts cannot rely on evidence or allegations outside the 
complaint to decide a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss.”  Jefferson v. Bunting, 
140 Ohio St.3d 62, 2014-Ohio-3074, 14 N.E.3d 1036, ¶ 11.  When a Civ.R. 
12(B)(6) motion depends on extrinsic evidence, the “proper procedure is for the 
court to convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and 
provide the opposing party with notice and an opportunity to respond.”  Id. at ¶ 12.  
However, “[a]n event that causes a case to become moot may be proved by extrinsic 
evidence outside the record.”  State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer, Div. of Gannett 
Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. Dupuis, 98 Ohio St.3d 126, 2002-Ohio-7041, 781 
N.E.2d 163, ¶ 8; see also State ex rel. Nelson v. Russo, 89 Ohio St.3d 227, 228, 729 
N.E.2d 1181 (2000) (“the court of appeals could have taken judicial notice of the 
mootness of Nelson’s writ action without converting Judge Russo’s dismissal 
motion to a motion for summary judgment”). 
{¶ 6} Thus, the court of appeals properly dismissed Evans’s complaint 
based on the evidence attached to Mohr’s motion to dismiss, which proved that the 
detainer is no longer on Evans’s prison record. 
B. 
Declaratory Judgment 
{¶ 7} After DRC removed the detainer from Evans’s record, Evans filed a 
motion for a declaratory judgment in the Tenth District Court of Appeals under the 
same case number as his complaint for a writ of mandamus.  Specifically, Evans 
asked for an order that would prevent future modifications to his DRC records.  
Evans’s claim that he is entitled to a declaratory judgment is baseless.  Despite 
Evans’s argument to the contrary, “courts of appeals lack original jurisdiction over 
claims for declaratory judgment.”  State ex rel. Shimko v. McMonagle, 92 Ohio 
St.3d 426, 430, 751 N.E.2d 472 (2001).  Accordingly, the court of appeals correctly 
denied Evans’s motion. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
C. 
Request for monetary damages 
{¶ 8} Evans also argues that the court of appeals erred in denying his motion 
for summary judgment, through which he requested an award of monetary damages 
in light of the improper placement of the detainer on his prison record.  The court 
of appeals correctly held that Evans could not assert a claim for monetary damages 
in a summary-judgment motion when he failed to include that claim in his 
mandamus complaint.  Civ.R. 56(A); McGinnis, Inc. v. Lawrence Economic Dev. 
Corp., 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 02CA33, 2003-Ohio-6552, ¶ 22-23 (rejecting 
“appellant’s attempt to assert the alleged R.C. 121.22 violation by summary 
judgment motion when appellant did not raise the alleged violation in its 
complaint”).  
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and 
DEGENARO, JJ., concur. 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs in judgment only. 
_________________ 
William H. Evans Jr., pro se. 
Michael DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, and George Horvath, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
_________________