[Cite as State ex rel. McCall v. Gall, 2017-Ohio-8234.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 105972 

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. 

TONY McCALL 

RELATOR 

vs. 

THE HONORABLE JUDGE STEVEN E. GALL, 

ET AL. 

RESPONDENTS 

JUDGMENT:

WRITS DENIED 

Writs of Mandamus and Procedendo 

Motion No. 509281 

Order No. 510958 

RELEASE DATE: October 18, 2017 
FOR RELATOR

Tony McCall, pro se 

Inmate No. A167246 

Pickaway Correctional Institution 

P.O. Box 209 

Orient, Ohio 43146-0209 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Michael C. O’Malley 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: James E. Moss 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

The Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, P.J.: 

{¶1} On July 7, 2017, the relator, Tony McCall, commenced this mandamus and 

procedendo action against the respondents, Judge Steven Gall, Clerk of Courts Nailah 

Byrd, and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office. He seeks in the underlying cases, 

State v. McCall, Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-81-166002-ZA and CR-81-166093-ZA, (1) to 

compel the respondents to serve him with a copy of the February 22, 2017 judgment entry 

denying his motion to withdraw guilty plea, (2) to compel a ruling on his motion to 

compel the clerk to serve the ruling, (3) to compel a ruling on his February 28, 2017 

motion for leave to amend and add claims to his motion to withdraw guilty plea, (4) to 

compel the respondents to serve that ruling on him, and (5) to compel the prosecutor to 

serve him with a copy of the March 15, 2017 brief in opposition. On August 4, 2017, 

the respondents moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness. McCall 

filed a brief in opposition on August 29, 2017.1

 For the following reasons, this court 

grants the respondents’ motion for summary judgment and denies the application for writs 

of mandamus and procedendo. 

{¶2} Attached to the respondents’ summary judgment motion are a letter from 

the clerk of courts stating: “Enclosed are copies of journal entries issued 2/22/2017 in 

cases CR-81-160093-ZA and CR-81-166002-ZA.” and the two journal entries from the 

underlying cases denying McCall’s motions to withdraw his guilty pleas. These 

 1Pursuant to a motion for extension of time, this court granted McCall until September 27, 

2017, to file his opposition. 
attachments establish that the clerk has served the journal entries upon McCall and that 

his motion to compel service of these entries is moot. McCall admits this in his August 

29, 2017 brief. 

{¶3} The summary judgment motion also attached certified copies of 

June 28, 2017 journal entries in which the respondent judge denied the motions for leave 

to amend the motion to withdraw guilty plea in the two underlying cases. These 

attachments establish that the judge has fulfilled his duty to rule on the subject motions. 

It also moots McCall’s claim that the clerk serve him with copies of the rulings. An 

extraordinary writ will not issue to compel a vain act. State ex rel. Newell v. Gaul, 8th 

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98326, 2012-Ohio-4068. 

{¶4} Finally, the respondent prosecutor attached his brief in opposition to 

McCall’s motion for leave to amend. This attachment establishes that McCall’s claim 

for service of the brief is moot. 

{¶5} Accordingly, this court grants the respondents’ motion for summary 

judgment and denies the application for writs of procedendo and mandamus. 

Respondents to pay costs; costs waived. This court directs the clerk of courts to serve 

all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required by 

Civ.R. 58(B). 

{¶6} Writs denied. 

 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE 
MELODY J. STEWART, J., and 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR