[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Ames v. Pokorny , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2070.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O
. 2021-O HIO -2070
T HE S TATE EX REL
. A MES v . P OKORNY , J UDGE
. [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Ames v. Pokorny , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2070.] Procedendo—Open Meetings Act—Writ of procedendo will not issue to compel performance of a duty that the j udge has already performed—Cause
dismissed. (No. 2020-1465—Submitted Apr il 27, 2021—Decided June 23, 2021.)
I N P ROCEDENDO

.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Relator, Brian M. Ames, seeks a writ of procedendo ordering respondent, Judge Thomas J. Pokor ny, to rule on Ames’s motions to dismiss
counterclaims in consolidated cas es pending in the Portage Coun ty Court of Common Pleas. Because Judge Pokorny has ruled on the motions, we dismiss this

case as moot.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 {¶ 2} In 2019, Ames brought four actions in the Portage County Court of Common Pleas against the Portage County Solid Waste Management District (“the district”) and the Portage Count y Board of Commissioners (“the board”)—case Nos. 2019CV00384, 2019CV00621, 2019CV00653, and 2019CV00808. E ach complaint alleges violations of the Open Meetings Act, R.C. 121 .22, related to the public business of the district conducted by the board. Judge Pokorny was assigned to preside over each of these cases after the judge initially a ssigned to the cases
recused herself. {¶ 3} On October 10, 2019, Judge Pokorny consolidated case Nos. 2019CV00384, 2019CV00621, and 2019CV00653. On January 8, 2020, the
district and the board filed ame nded counterclaims for declarat ory judgment in the
three consolidated cases and in case No. 2019CV00808. On Janua ry 14, 2020,
Ames filed motions to dismiss both counterclaims. {¶ 4} Ames commenced this action on December 3, 2020, seeking a writ of procedendo to compel Judge Pokorny to rule on his motions to di smiss the counterclaims of the district and the board. Ames alleged that his motions to dismiss had been pending for ten months. On February 10, 2021, we dismissed
Ames’s action as to case No. 2019CV00808; we sua sponte granted an alternative writ as to the three remaining consolidated cases and set a sch edule for the submission of evidence and briefing. 161 Ohio St.3d 1426, 2021 -Ohio-303, 162
N.E.3d 809. {¶ 5} Ames has submitted as evidence a certified copy of a judgment e ntry signed by Judge Pokorny in the c onsolidated cases, which states : “Relator’s Motion to Dismiss Respondents’ Countercla im for Declaratory Judgment i s DENIED.” Also submitted as evidence is a certified copy of the docket in case No. 2019CV00384—the case number under which Judge Pokorny ordered a ll
documents to be filed in the cons olidated cases. The docket sh ows that an entry denying Ames’s countercla ims was filed on December 29, 2020.January Term, 2021

3 {¶ 6} A writ of procedendo will issue when a court has refused to ent er judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment. State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier , 135 Ohio St.3d 436, 2013-Ohio-1762, 988 N.E.2d 564, ¶ 7. To be entitled to a writ of procedendo, Ames must establish (1) a clear legal right to require Judge Pokorny to proceed, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of Judge Pokorny to proceed, and (3) the absence of an adequate remedy i n the ordinary
course of the law. See id. {¶ 7} A writ of procedendo will not issue to compel the performance o f a duty that the judge has already performed. State ex rel. Morgan v. Fais , 146 Ohio St.3d 428, 2016-Ohio-1564, 57 N.E.3d 1140, ¶ 4. The evidence s hows that Judge Pokorny has already denied the motions for which Ames seeks to compel a ruling in procedendo. Accordingly, we dismiss this action as moot.
Cause dismissed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , S TEWART , and B RUNNER , JJ., concur.

_________________ Brian M. Ames, pro se. Thomas J. Pokorny, pro se.

_________________