Title: State ex rel. Howard v. Doneghy

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[CITE AS STATE EX REL. HOWARD V. DONEGHY, 102 OHIO ST.3D 355, 2004-OHIO-3207.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. HOWARD, APPELLANT, v. DONEGHY, JUDGE, APPELLEE, ET 
AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Howard v. Doneghy, 102 Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-Ohio-
3207.] 
Complaint for writ of procedendo to compel common pleas court judge to 
proceed to judgment in relator’s administrative appeal — Claim 
rendered moot when judge renders judgment in underlying case — 
Mandamus sought to compel common pleas court judge to report alleged 
ethical misconduct by opposing counsel — Relator not entitled to writ, 
since he has an adequate legal remedy by filing a grievance under 
Gov.Bar R. V — Court of appeals’ dismissal of complaints affirmed — 
Sanctions imposed on relator pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(5) for 
frivolous appeal. 
(Nos. 2004-0420 — Submitted June 9, 2004 — Decided July 7, 2004.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-03-1344, 2004-Ohio-
684. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
On December 12, 2003, appellant, Gregory T. Howard, filed a 
complaint in the Court of Appeals for Lucas County naming appellee, Judge 
Charles J. Doneghy of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, the Industrial 
Commission, the Administrator of Workers’ Compensation, and Seaway Food 
Town, Inc., as respondents.  Howard sought a writ of procedendo to compel Judge 
Doneghy to proceed to judgment in Howard’s administrative appeal in the 
common pleas court.  Howard v. Indus. Comm., case No. CI0200301864.  
Howard alleged that Judge Doneghy had failed to rule on several motions in the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
administrative appeal.  Howard also requested a writ of mandamus to compel 
Judge Doneghy to report to the Ohio State Bar Association alleged misconduct by 
opposing counsel in the appeal. 
{¶2} 
On January 15, 2004, the court of appeals dismissed the Industrial 
Commission, the Administrator of Workers’ Compensation, and Seaway Food 
Town, Inc.  The court of appeals further issued an alternative writ and ordered the 
remaining respondent, Judge Doneghy, to do the acts requested by Howard or 
show cause why he would not. 
{¶3} 
On January 21, 2004, Judge Doneghy entered judgment against 
Howard in his administrative appeal and denied all of Howard’s pending motions.  
On January 29, 2004, Judge Doneghy moved to dismiss Howard’s writ action.  
On February 9, 2004, the court of appeals granted Judge Doneghy’s motion and 
dismissed Howard’s complaint. 
{¶4} 
On February 11, 2004, Howard requested that the court of appeals 
vacate its February 9, 2004 judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 15, 56, and 60(B)(1) 
through (5).  On March 4, 2004, the court of appeals denied Howard’s motion. 
{¶5} 
On appeal, Howard asserts that the court of appeals erred in 
dismissing his claims for writs of procedendo and mandamus and denying his 
Civ.R. 60(B) motion.  Howard’s assertion is meritless for the following reasons. 
{¶6} 
First, Howard’s claim for a writ of procedendo was rendered moot 
by Judge Doneghy’s January 21, 2004 judgment in the underlying case.  “Neither 
procedendo nor mandamus will compel the performance of a duty that has already 
been performed.”  State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 
318, 725 N.E.2d 663, citing State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 
252, 253, 703 N.E.2d 304. 
{¶7} 
Second, Howard was not entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel 
Judge Doneghy to report alleged ethical misconduct by opposing counsel, because 
January Term, 2004 
3 
Howard has or had an adequate legal remedy by filing a grievance under Gov.Bar 
R. V.  Howard v. Spore (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 131, 132, 742 N.E.2d 649. 
{¶8} 
Third, the court of appeals properly denied Howard’s Civ.R. 60(B) 
motion. “ ‘A Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment cannot be used as a 
substitute for a timely appeal * * *.’ ”  State ex rel. Bragg v. Seidner (2001), 92 
Ohio St.3d 87, 748 N.E.2d 532, quoting Key v. Mitchell (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 89, 
90-91, 689 N.E.2d 548.  The issues raised in Howard’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion could 
have been raised on appeal. 
{¶9} 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
{¶10} Moreover, we impose sanctions pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(5).  
Howard is no stranger to filing frivolous actions in this court.  See State ex rel. 
Howard v. Zimmerman, 99 Ohio St.3d 1535, 2003-Ohio-4753, 795 N.E.2d 676, 
where we noted that “the continued filing by Gregory T. Howard of frivolous 
actions * * * will result in additional sanctions, including the forfeiture of security 
deposits, awards of expenses and attorney fees, costs or double costs, or any other 
sanction the court considers just”; State ex rel. Howard v. Indus. Comm., 101 
Ohio St.3d 1465, 2004-Ohio-819, 804 N.E.2d 39 (sanction of attorney fees 
awarded against Howard). 
{¶11} Howard’s appeal is frivolous because it is “not reasonably well-
grounded in fact or warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the 
extension, modification, or reversal of existing laws.”  S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(5).  As 
Judge Doneghy aptly observes, we rejected a similar mandamus claim by Howard 
a few years ago.  Howard, 91 Ohio St.3d at 132, 742 N.E.2d 649.  Therefore, we 
impose sanctions against Howard under S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(5) and order Judge 
Doneghy to submit within 20 days a detailed bill of reasonable expenses and 
reasonable attorney fees incurred by him in this appeal.  Howard may file 
objections within ten days of the filing of the bill and documentation, and Judge 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Doneghy may file a reply to the objections within five days of the filing of the 
objections.1 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
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. 
_____________________________ 
                                                 
1.  We deny Howard’s motion to consolidate this case with State ex rel. Howard v. Lucas Cty. 
Court of Common Pleas, 102 Ohio St.3d 1457, 2004-Ohio-2569, 809 N.E.2d 31.