[Cite as State ex rel. Manning v. Adult Parole Auth., 2016-Ohio-7946.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State of Ohio ex rel. Charles Manning, : 

 

 Relator, : 

 

v. : No. 15AP-1050 

 

Adult Parole Authority [and] : (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation 

and Correction, : 

 

 Respondents. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on November 29, 2016 

 

On brief: Charles Manning, pro se. 

On brief: Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and B. 

Alexander Kennedy, for respondents.

 

IN MANDAMUS 

ON OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION 

BROWN, J. 

{¶ 1} Relator, Charles Manning, has filed an original action requesting this court 

to issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondents, the Ohio Adult Parole Authority 

("OAPA") and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"), to 

reinstate his transfer to transitional control, to award him damages for lost wages and 

punitive damages, and to grant injunctive relief ordering respondents to strictly apply 

ODRC policy to relator and all applicants in the state's transitional control program. 

{¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of 

Appeals, this matter was referred to a magistrate of this court who issued the appended 
No. 15AP-1050 2 

decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, recommending that this court 

dismiss relator's action. Relator has filed pro se objections to the magistrate's decision. 

{¶ 3} Before addressing relator's objections, we note the following procedural 

background of this action. On November 17, 2015, relator filed his petition in mandamus 

against respondents, seeking a writ ordering OAPA to "reinstate his transfer to 

Transitional Control as granted September 15, 2015 in compliance with [R.C.] 2967.26." 

(Mandamus Petition at ¶ 48.) In the petition, relator alleged he was currently an inmate 

at Marion Correctional Institution, serving an aggregate five-year sentence consisting of a 

four-year sentence imposed by the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (case No. 

CR 10541589), and a one-year sentence imposed by the Lake County Court of Common 

Pleas (case No. 11CR 000453), with such sentences to be served consecutive to each other. 

{¶ 4} The petition alleged that relator was initially screened and deemed eligible 

for transitional control status under R.C. 2967.26, which allows OAPA to transfer eligible 

inmates to a halfway house for the final 180 days of their confinement to participate in 

employment and/or educational opportunities; further, on September 15, 2015, relator 

received notification that transitional control had been recommended "pending judicial 

review." (Mandamus Petition at ¶ 10.) 

{¶ 5} On September 22, 2015, relator's case manager informed relator that his 

transfer to transitional control had been denied because the sentencing judge in relator's 

Lake County case had "vetoed" his participation in the program. (Mandamus Petition at 

¶ 11.) Relator's parole officer subsequently informed relator that his transfer was denied 

because his conviction in the Cuyahoga County case "was a serious crime involving a large 

amount of money." (Mandamus Petition at ¶ 17.) 

{¶ 6} Relator sent a letter to the director of ODRC on October 9, 2015, protesting 

the decision revoking and denying his transfer to transitional control "as an illegal abuse 

of discretion and seeking its reinstatement." (Mandamus Petition at ¶ 23.) According to 

the petition, relator informed his case manager that the sentencing judge in Lake County 

should not have been notified of his recommendation for transitional control "since 

judicial notification is required under [R.C.] 2967.26(A)(2) only for those sentenced to a 

prison term of two years or less and * * * his term was for five years." (Mandamus Petition 

at ¶ 12.) Further, with respect to the subsequent stated basis for denial, relator asserted 
No. 15AP-1050 3 

there was no statutory authority or guideline authorizing respondents to consider the 

"serious nature" of the crime underlying his prison sentence (imposed in the Cuyahoga 

County case). (Mandamus Petition at ¶ 44.) Based on the allegation that he was legally 

entitled to transfer to transitional control, relator requested "the immediate reinstatement 

of his transfer to Transitional Control as granted on September 15, 2015." (Mandamus 

Petition at ¶ 41.) 

{¶ 7} On February 5, 2016, OAPA filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a 

claim for relief under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). In the accompanying memorandum in support, 

OAPA argued that relator did not have a legal right to transfer to the transitional control 

program as such program is permissive and discretionary. 

{¶ 8} On March 25, 2016, relator filed an amended petition for a writ of 

mandamus ("amended petition"), in which he re-alleged paragraphs 1 through 48 of his 

initial petition, and further alleged in part: "Since Relator's filing of his initial Petition for 

a Writ of Mandamus, it is now apparent that there will not be sufficient time for the Court 

to hear and rule upon Relator's Petition and order Relator to participate in his applied for 

Transitional Control program for which he was eligible for participation commencing 

January 12, 2016." (Am. Petition at ¶ 50.) 

{¶ 9} The amended petition alleged that, as a direct and proximate result of 

respondents' denial of his right to participate in the transitional control program, relator 

"has sustained damages for lost wages in the amount of $20,000." (Amended Petition at 

¶ 52.) Relator further alleged he was "entitled to punitive damages in the amount of 

$150,000 to prevent further such abuses by Respondent and its personnel." (Am. Petition 

at ¶ 53.) 

{¶ 10} On April 5, 2016, OAPA filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition in 

mandamus. In the accompanying memorandum in support, OAPA argued that the 

amended petition, in which relator sought monetary damages against the state, precluded 

this court from retaining jurisdiction over relator's claims. 

{¶ 11} The magistrate issued a decision on May 17, 2016, recommending that this 

court grant OAPA's motion to dismiss. The magistrate, noting that actions for monetary 

damages against the state "can only be brought in the Court of Claims of Ohio," 
No. 15AP-1050 4 

determined that this court was not the proper forum to consider relator's amended 

petition for a writ of mandamus. (Mag. Decision at ¶ 34.) 

{¶ 12} Relator raises two objections to the magistrate's decision, asserting that: (1) 

the magistrate should not have dismissed that portion of his petition requesting equitable 

relief, and (2) the amended petition was properly before this court because, according to 

relator, a court may award monetary damages against the state in an action for 

mandamus under R.C. 2731.11. 

{¶ 13} We first address relator's claims for equitable and injunctive relief. To the 

extent relator seeks a writ compelling respondents to reinstate his transfer to transitional 

control as granted September 15, 2015, such claim is moot. As noted under the facts, 

relator averred in his amended petition: "Since Relator's filing of his initial Petition for a 

Writ of Mandamus, it is now apparent that there will not be sufficient time for the Court 

to hear and rule upon Relator's Petition and order Relator to participate in his applied for 

Transitional Control program for which he was eligible for participation commencing 

January 12, 2016." (Am. Petition at ¶ 50.) 

{¶ 14} Thus, based on the allegations in his amended petition, relator's claims for 

equitable and injunctive relief are moot as this court is unable to grant the relief he seeks 

(i.e., to rule on his petition in time for him to participate in the transitional control 

program during the final 180 days of his incarceration for which his eligibility commenced 

on January 12, 2016). See Berger v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn., 983 F.2d 718, 724 (6th 

Cir.1993) (noting that " '[m]ootness results when events occur during the pendency of the 

litigation which render the court unable to grant the requested relief.' * * * Nothing 

remains to be enjoined or declared improper"). Because relator's claims for equitable and 

injunctive relief as pertaining to his eligibility for transitional control are moot, the 

magistrate did not err in failing to grant mandamus relief. 

{¶ 15} To the extent relator seeks injunctive relief on behalf of "all persons" 

applying for transitional control, such claim fails as relator, a non-attorney pro se litigant, 

lacks standing to assert claims on behalf of other detainees. See, e.g., Studer v. Fisher, 3d 

Dist. No. 1-88-8 (Nov. 27, 1989) (plaintiff is limited to representing his interests only as a 

pro se litigant); Hamilton v. Ohio Dept. of Health, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-1035, 2015-Ohio4041, ¶ 29. 
No. 15AP-1050 5 

{¶ 16} Under his remaining objection, relator purports to seek monetary relief 

under R.C. 2731.11, which provides for the recovery of damages by a relator for whom 

judgment is rendered in a mandamus proceeding. Even assuming, without deciding, the 

validity of relator's premise that an action under R.C. 2731.11 is applicable against the 

state, "R.C. 2731.11 provides for damages only where a writ of mandamus is rendered for 

the plaintiff." Berger v. Cleveland, 8th Dist. No. 67735 (Mar. 30, 1995). See also State ex 

rel. Natl. City Bank v. Maloney, 103 Ohio St.3d 93, 2004-Ohio-4437, ¶ 13 (construing 

R.C. 2731.11 to hold that "[a] writ of mandamus must be granted before a claim for 

damages may be considered"). Having determined that relator's claims for equitable and 

injunctive relief have become moot, thereby precluding relief in mandamus, this court is 

without jurisdiction to consider relator's claim for damages under R.C. 2731.11. See

Berger v. Cleveland (Since requested writ would not issue because subject was moot, 

court lacked jurisdiction to hear appellant's claim for damages under R.C. 2731.11.). 

{¶ 17} Accordingly, relator's objections are not well-taken and are overruled. 

{¶ 18} Based on this court's independent review of the record, we adopt the 

magistrate's findings of fact, but we modify the conclusions of law to the extent provided 

in this decision; relator's objections are overruled, OAPA's motion to dismiss is granted, 

and this action is hereby dismissed. 

Objections overruled; motion to dismiss granted; 

action dismissed. 

KLATT and SADLER, JJ., concur. 

_____________________ 
[Cite as State ex rel. Manning v. Adult Parole Auth., 2016-Ohio-7946.]

APPENDIX 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 

State of Ohio ex rel. Charles Manning, : 

 

 Relator, : 

 

v. : No. 15AP-1050 

 

Adult Parole Authority [and] : (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation 

& Correction, : 

 

 Respondents. : 

 

M A G I S T R A T E ' S D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on May 17, 2016

 

Charles Manning, pro se. 

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and B. Alexander 

Kennedy, for respondents.

 

IN MANDAMUS 

ON RESPONDENTS' MOTION TO DISMISS 

{¶ 19} Relator, Charles Manning, has filed this original action requesting that this 

court issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondents, the Ohio Adult Parole Authority 

and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC") to reinstate his 

transfer to transitional control and further, he seeks "damages for lost wages in the 

amount of $20,000," "punitive damages in the amount of $150,000," as well as injunctive 

relief ordering respondent to strictly apply ODRC policy to relator and all other applicants 

in the transitional control program. 
No. 15AP-1050 7 

Findings of Fact:

{¶ 20} 1. Relator is an inmate currently incarcerated at Marion Correctional 

Institution. 

{¶ 21} 2. Relator filed this mandamus action on November 17, 2015. 

{¶ 22} 3. At the same time, relator filed a motion for expedited hearing. 

{¶ 23} 4. A magistrate was appointed on November 18, 2015, and relator's motion 

for an expedited hearing was denied on November 20, 2015. 

{¶ 24} 5. Service was eventually completed on both respondents on January 12, 

2016. 

{¶ 25} 6. On January 13, 2016, counsel for respondents requested an extension of 

time in which to file its answer or otherwise plead and, in an order filed January 19, 2016, 

respondents were granted until February 5, 2016. 

{¶ 26} 7. On February 5, 2016, respondents filed a motion to dismiss. 

{¶ 27} 8. On February 25, 2016, relator requested a motion for an extension of 

time to respond and was granted until March 7, 2016. 

{¶ 28} 9. On March 18, 2016, relator filed a request for production of documents. 

{¶ 29} 10. On March 25, 2016, relator filed an amended petition in which he seeks 

monetary damages. 

{¶ 30} 11. On April 5, 2016, counsel for respondents filed a motion to dismiss on 

grounds that this court did not have jurisdiction over relator's amended petition. 

{¶ 31} 12. Relator has not filed a response to respondents' motion to dismiss. 

{¶ 32} 13. The matter is currently before the magistrate on respondents' motion to 

dismiss. 

Conclusions of Law:

{¶ 33} For the reasons that follow, it is the magistrate's decision that this court 

should grant respondents' motion and dismiss relator's petition for a writ of mandamus. 

{¶ 34} Actions for monetary damages against the state, its officers, and employees 

can only be brought in the Court of Claims of Ohio. Under the Court of Claims Act, R.C. 

Chapter 2743, the state waives its immunity from liability and agrees to be sued only in 
No. 15AP-1050 8 

the Court of Claims, giving that court exclusive original jurisdiction of all civil actions 

against the state which are permitted by the state's waiver of immunity. See R.C. 

2743.02(A)(1). 

{¶ 35} Because jurisdiction is a condition precedent to a court's ability to hear a 

case and because the Court of Claims has exclusive original jurisdiction over this case, this 

court is not the proper forum to consider relator's amended petition for a writ of 

mandamus. 

{¶ 36} Finding that this court does not have jurisdiction, it is this magistrate's 

decision that this court should grant respondents' motion and dismiss relator's petition. 

 

 /S/ MAGISTRATE 

 STEPHANIE BISCA 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES 

Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) provides that a party shall not assign as 

error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or 

legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a 

finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 

53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and specifically objects 

to that factual finding or legal conclusion as required by Civ.R. 

53(D)(3)(b).