[Cite as Walter v. State, 2013-Ohio-3621.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 100089

TERRANCE WALTER

RELATOR 

vs. 

STATE OF OHIO

RESPONDENT 

JUDGMENT: 

WRIT DENIED 

Writ of Procedendo 

Motion No. 467069 

Order No. 466530 

RELEASE DATE: August 16, 2013 
FOR RELATOR

Terrance J. Walter, pro se 

Inmate #531-346 

Trumbull Correctional Institution 

P.O. Box 901 

Leavittsburg, OH 44430 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: James E. Moss 

9th Floor Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, OH 44113 
TIM McCORMACK, J.: 

{¶1} Terrance Walter, relator, has petitioned this court to issue a writ of 

procedendo to compel the trial court to rule on his Civ.R. 60(B) motion filed in Walter v. 

State, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-485250-A. Respondent has filed a motion for summary 

judgment. For the reasons that follow, we grant respondent’s motion for summary 

judgment and deny relator’s writ of procedendo because it is procedurally defective and 

moot. 

{¶2} In State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula, 81 Ohio St.3d 110, 111, 689 N.E.2d 564 

(1988), the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the appellate court’s dismissal of a writ 

action by holding: “original actions for extraordinary relief, e.g., a writ of procedendo, 

must be commenced by filing a complaint or petition rather than a motion”; see also State 

ex rel. Foster v. Buchanan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 85962, 2006-Ohio-2061 (dismissing 

relator’s motion for a writ of mandamus as procedurally defective). 

{¶3} Relator did not properly designate the original action by using the name of 

the state on the relation of the person applying, and he did not include the address of the 

parties as required by Civ.R. 10(A). The failure to caption an original action properly 

constitutes sufficient grounds for dismissing the complaint. Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of 

Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 139, 2005-Ohio-5795, 841 N.E.2d 766; Barry v. Galvin, 8th 

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 85990, 2005-Ohio-2324, ¶ 2, citing Allen v. Court of Common Pleas 

of Allen Cty., 173 Ohio St. 226, 181 N.E.2d 270 (1962). 
{¶4} Relator has further failed to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) and R.C. 

2969.25 by failing to file a verified complaint with an affidavit in support and an affidavit 

detailing his prior civil filings. The Supreme Court has held, “The requirements of R.C. 

2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to 

dismissal.” State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 

N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5. Noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25 warrants dismissal. State ex rel. 

Graham v. Niemeyer, 106 Ohio St.3d 466, 466-467, 2005-Ohio-5522, 835 N.E.2d 1250. 

It is well settled that a relator’s failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 warrants the 

dismissal of the complaint for a writ of procedendo. State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio 

Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 1998-Ohio-218, 696 N.E.2d 594; State ex rel. Alford v. 

Winters, 80 Ohio St.3d 285, 1997-Ohio-117, 685 N.E.2d 1242; State ex rel. Davis v. 

Gaul, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87884, 2006-Ohio-2299, ¶ 2 (“Davis’s failure to comply 

with R.C. 2969.25 warrants the dismissal of the complaint for a writ of procedendo.”). 

{¶5} Relator also failed to name a proper respondent. He has named the state of 

Ohio that has no duty or authority to rule on relator’s motion. State ex rel. Becker v. 

Eastlake, 93 Ohio St.3d 502, 506, 756 N.E.2d 1228 (2001); see also Thompson v. State, 

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99265, 2013-Ohio-1907, ¶ 10; State v. Lindsay, 5th Dist. 

Richland No. 13-CA-8, 2013-Ohio-2972, ¶ 6. 

{¶6} Finally, attached to respondent’s motion for summary judgment is a copy of 

the court’s entry journalized on July 26, 2013, which demonstrates that a ruling has been 

rendered with regard to relator’s motion for relief from judgment filed June 6, 2011, and 
his motion to remove court costs and fines filed July 14, 2011. “The writ of procedendo is 

merely an order from a court of superior jurisdiction to one of inferior jurisdiction to 

proceed to judgment.” State ex rel. Huffman v. Ambrose, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95546, 

2010-Ohio-5376, ¶ 5, citing Yee v. Erie Cty. Sheriff’s Dept., 51 Ohio St.3d 43, 553 

N.E.2d 1354 (1990). Because the trial court has proceeded to judgment on relator’s 

motion, the writ is moot. Id. at ¶ 6. 

{¶7} Accordingly, we grant respondent’s motion for summary judgment and 

deny relator’s writ of procedendo. Relator to pay costs. The court directs the clerk of 

court to serve all parties with notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the 

journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B). 

{¶8} Writ denied. 

__________________________________________ 

TIM McCORMACK, JUDGE 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR