[Cite as State ex rel. Dowdell v. Sheehan, 2014-Ohio-2068.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 101080

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. 

JARON DOWDELL 

RELATOR 

vs. 

HONORABLE BRENDAN SHEEHAN

RESPONDENT 

JUDGMENT: 

WRIT DENIED 

Writ of Mandamus 

Motion No. 473528 

Order No. 474519 

RELEASE DATE: May 14, 2014 
FOR RELATOR

Jaron Dowdell, pro se 

Inmate No. 650-574 

Trumbull Correctional Institution 

P.O. Box 901 

Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: James E. Moss 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

9th Floor Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶1} On March 4, 2014, the relator, Jaron Dowdell, commenced this extraordinary 

writ action against the respondent, Judge Brendan Sheehan.1

 In his complaint, Dowdell 

seeks to compel the judge to rule on a R.C. 2953.21 postconviction relief petition that 

Dowdell says he filed on December 21, 2013, in the underlying case, State v. Dowdell, 

Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-12-558070-A. On March 27, 2014, the respondent judge, 

through the Cuyahoga County prosecutor, moved for summary judgment on the grounds 

of mootness and procedural defects. Dowdell never filed a timely response. For the 

following reasons, this court grants the respondent’s dispositive motion and denies the 

application for an extraordinary writ. 

{¶2} In the underlying case, Dowdell pleaded guilty to burglary, attempted 

felonious assault, and vandalism, and the judge sentenced him to two years of community 

control sanctions. On November 20, 2013, after repeated community control violations, 

the trial judge ordered him to prison for one year on each count to be served concurrently 

with 101 days of jail-time credit. 

{¶3} A review of the underlying case’s docket shows that Dowdell never filed a 

R.C. 2953.21 postconviction relief petition, but did file a motion for jail-time credit on 

 1 In his pleading caption, Dowdell styles his action as a complaint for mandamus, but in his 

complaint he says that he is applying for a writ of procedendo. His demand for judgment “prays that 

this court issue a procedendo against respondent granting the mandamus action * * *.” He also 

refers to a writ of habeas corpus in his affidavit of verity, but makes no argument for immediate 

release. 
December 24, 2013. Attached to the judge’s summary judgment motion is a copy of a 

certified March 12, 2014 judgment entry granting Dowdell 137 days of jail-time credit. 

Thus, the judge has fulfilled his duty to rule on the outstanding motion and has rendered 

this writ action moot.2

 There is no duty to resolve or proceed to judgment on a 

postconviction relief petition that was never filed. 

{¶4} Relator also did not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) which requires that an 

inmate file a certified statement from his prison cashier setting forth the balance in his 

private account for each of the preceding six months. This also is sufficient reason to 

deny the mandamus, deny indigency status, and assess costs against the relator. State 

ex rel. Pamer v. Collier, 108 Ohio St.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-1507, 844 N.E.2d 842; and 

Hazel v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 22, 2011-Ohio-4608, 955 N.E.2d 378. 

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

judgment and denies the application for an extraordinary writ. Relator to pay costs. 

This court directs the clerk of court to serve all parties notice of this judgment and its date 

of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B). 

 2 The requisites for mandamus are well established: (1) the relator must have a clear legal 

right to the requested relief, (2) the respondent must have a clear legal duty to perform the requested 

relief and (3) there must be no adequate remedy at law. Additionally, although mandamus may be 

used to compel a court to exercise judgment or to discharge a function, it may not control judicial 

discretion, even if that discretion is grossly abused. State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus, 33 Ohio St.3d 118, 

515 N.E.2d 914 (1987). Furthermore, mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. State ex rel. 

Pressley v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631 (1967), paragraph three of the 

syllabus. Moreover, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is to be exercised with caution and 

only when the right is clear. It should not issue in doubtful cases. State ex rel. Taylor v. Glasser, 

50 Ohio St.2d 165, 364 N.E.2d 1 (1977). 
{¶6} Writ denied. 

_____________________________________ 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR