[Cite as State ex rel. Jennings v. Montgomery, 2012-Ohio-3088.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 98222 

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., 

TALBERT JENNINGS 

RELATOR 

vs. 

K.J. MONTGOMERY, AS JUDGE OF, 

 ETC. 

RESPONDENT 

JUDGMENT: 

COMPLAINT DISMISSED 

Writ of Mandamus 

Motion No. 454597 

Order No. 456022 

 RELEASE DATE: July 2, 2012 
FOR RELATOR

Talbert Jennings, pro se 

3960 Rosemond Rd. 

Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44121 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

William M. Ondrey Gruber, Interim Director of Law 

C. Randolph Keller 

Chief Prosecutor/Assistant Director of Law 

City of Shaker Heights 

3400 Lee Road 

Shaker Heights, Ohio 44120 
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶1} Talbert Jennings has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Jennings 

seeks the following: (1) Judge K.J. Montgomery be ordered to release and return a $525 

cash bond; and (2) the declaration that “the Shaker Heights Municipal Court’s bond form 

[is] null and void based on it being vague and ambiguous so that it cannot continue to be 

used against literacy challenged individuals, including [Jennings] who did not fully 

comprehend it.” Judge Montgomery has filed a motion to dismiss, which we grant for 

the following reasons. 

{¶2} On December 5, 2011, Jennings posted a cash bond in the amount of $525 

with the Shaker Heights Municipal Court in order to insure the appearance of his 

granddaughter, Lashai Yvonne Maul Jennings, in Univ. Hts. v. Jennings, Shaker Heights 

Municipal Court Case No. 11TRD04249. On December 13, 2011, Lashai Jennings 

entered a plea of no contest and was found guilty of a traffic offense and contempt. The 

bond was then applied toward her fines and costs. 

{¶3} Through his complaint for a writ of mandamus, Jennings argues that his 

failure to fully comprehend and understand that the posted bond could be employed to 

satisfy any fine or costs on behalf of Lashai Jennings, requires the return of the full 

amount of the bond. In addition, Jennings seeks a declaration that the language 

contained within the application form associated with the bond posted on behalf of Lashai 
Jennings, which permits the “use of said bond to pay any fines and costs per Ohio 

Revised Code Section 2937.40(B),” is void and ambiguous and prevents its future 

application. 

{¶4} Initially, we find that Jennings’s complaint for a writ of mandamus is 

procedurally defective. Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) provides that a complaint for an 

extraordinary writ must be supported by a sworn affidavit that specifies the details of 

Jennings’s claim. A simple statement that verifies that Jennings has reviewed the 

complaint and that the contents are true and accurate does not satisfy the mandatory 

requirement under Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). State ex rel. Jones v. McGinty, 8th Dist. No. 

92602, 2009-Ohio-1258; State ex rel. Mayes v. Ambrose, 8th Dist. No. 91980, 

2009-Ohio-25; James v. Callahan, 8th Dist. No. 89654, 2007-Ohio-2237. 

{¶5} In addition, Jennings’s complaint for a writ of mandamus is moot. 

Attached to the motion to dismiss is a copy of a judgment entry journalized on April 19, 

2012, which demonstrates that the bond posted by Jennings, in the total amount of $525, 

was ordered returned. See State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common 

Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 1996-Ohio-117, 658 N.E.2d 723; State ex rel. Gantt v. 

Coleman, 6 Ohio St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163 (1983). 

{¶6} Finally, Jennings, through his complaint for mandamus, seeks to prevent the 

Shaker Heights Municipal Court from using posted bond monies to pay for costs and 

fines on the basis that the language contained within the bond application form is vague 

and void. However, mandamus may not be employed when the real objective is a 
declaratory judgment and a prohibitory injunction. Thus, the complaint does not state a 

cause of action in mandamus and must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. State ex 

rel. Beane v. Dayton, 112 Ohio St.3d 553, 2007-Ohio-811, 862 N.E.2d 97; State ex rel. 

Phillips v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections, 93 Ohio St.3d 535, 757 N.E.2d 319 (2001); State 

ex rel. Grendell v. Davidson, 86 Ohio St.3d 629, 716 N.E.2d 704 (1999). 

{¶7} Accordingly, we grant Judge Montgomery’s motion to dismiss. Jennings 

to pay costs. The court directs the clerk of court to serve notice of this judgment and its 

date of entry upon all parties as required by Civ.R. 58(B). 

{¶8} Complaint dismissed. 

 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and 

COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., CONCUR