[Cite as State v. Pope, 2014-Ohio-2654.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 101184 

STATE OF OHIO 

 

 RESPONDENT

vs.

 JOHNATHAN POPE 

 RELATOR 

JUDGMENT: 

WRIT DENIED 

Writ of Mandamus 

Motion No. 474269 

Order No. 475376 

RELEASE DATE: June 13, 2014 
FOR RELATOR 

Johnathan Pope 

#650-717 

Richland Correctional Institution 

P.O. Box 8107 

Mansfield, Ohio 44901 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: James E. Moss 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

The Justice Center, 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J.: 

{¶1} On March 28, 2014, the relator, Johnathan Pope, commenced this mandamus 

action to compel the respondent to rule on the motions for jail-time credit that he filed on 

January 30, 2014, in State v. Pope, Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-13-576800-A and 

CR-13-578700-B, and on January 10, 2014, in State v. Pope, Cuyahoga C.P. No. 

CR-13-570585-A. On April 24, 2014, the respondent moved for summary judgment on 

the grounds of mootness and procedural defects. Pope never filed a timely response. 

For the following reasons, this court grants the respondent’s motion for summary 

judgment and denies the application for a writ of mandamus. 

{¶2} Attached to the summary judgment motion are copies of three certified 

journal entries dated April 15, 2014. The journal entry for Case No. CR-13-576800-A 

grants 59 days of jail-time credit, and the entry for Case No. CR-13-578700-B grants 58 

days of jail-time credit. In the entry for Case No. CR-13-570585-A, the judge denied 

the motion as moot because the court had terminated community control sanctions and 

released Pope from this case on December 2, 2013. These entries establish that the 

respondent has fulfilled it’s duty by ruling on the outstanding motions.1

 Accordingly, 

this mandamus action is moot. 

 1 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. 
{¶3} Additionally, Pope’s complaint contains multiple pleading deficiencies. 

First, the petition is improperly captioned. Pope styled this petition as “State of Ohio v. 

Johnathan Pope.” R.C. 2731.04 requires that an application for a writ of mandamus 

“must be by petition, in the name of the state on the relation of the person applying.” 

This failure to properly caption a mandamus action is sufficient grounds for denying the 

writ and dismissing the petition. Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen Cty., 173 

Ohio St. 226, 181 N.E.2d 270 (1962). Moreover, the failure to caption the case correctly 

creates uncertainty as to the identity of the respondent. This court has held that this 

deficiency alone also warrants dismissal. State ex rel. Calloway v. Court of Common 

Pleas of Cuyahoga Cty., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 71699, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 79452 

(Feb. 27, 1997); and Jordan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 96013, 2011-Ohio-1813. 

{¶4} The relator has also failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25 that requires an 

affidavit that describes each civil action or appeal filed by the relator within the previous 

five years in any state or federal court. The relator’s failure to comply with R.C. 

2969.25 warrants dismissal of a mandamus complaint. State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio 

Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 696 N.E.2d 594 (1994), and State ex rel. Alford v. 

Winters, 80 Ohio St.3d 285, 685 N.E.2d 1242 (1997). 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; State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of 

Common Pleas, 88 Ohio St.3d 176, 724 N.E.2d 420 (2000); and Hazel v. Knab, 130 Ohio 

St.3d 22, 2011-Ohio-4608, 955 N.E.2d 378. 

{¶5} Additionally, the relator failed to support his complaint with an affidavit 

“specifying the details of the claim” as required by Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). State ex rel. 

Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d 124, 2009-Ohio-4688, 

914 N.E.2d 402; and State ex rel. Wilson v. Calabrese, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 70077, 

1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 6213 (Jan. 18, 1996). 

{¶6} Accordingly, the court grants the respondent’s motion for summary judgment 

and denies the writ. Costs assessed against the relator. This court directs the clerk of 

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

journal. Civ.R. 58(B). 

 

 

LARRY A. JONES, SR., PRESIDING JUDGE 

TIM McCORMACK, J., and 

MELODY J. STEWART, J., CONCUR