[Cite as State ex rel. Davis v. Brown, 2021-Ohio-2479.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State ex rel. Diante Davis, : 

 

 Relator, : 

 No. 21AP-6 

v. : 

 (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

Honorable Judge [Christopher] Brown, : 

 

 Respondent. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on July 20, 2021 

 

On brief: Diante Davis, pro se. 

On brief: G. Gary Tyack, Prosecuting Attorney, and Bryan 

Lee, for respondent.

 

IN MANDAMUS 

BROWN, J. 

{¶ 1} Relator, Diante Davis, has filed an original action seeking a writ of mandamus 

ordering respondent, the Honorable Judge Christopher Brown, to issue a ruling on a 

motion for jail-time credit filed by relator. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss 

pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). 

{¶ 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. The magistrate issued the appended 

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

respondent's motion to dismiss. Specifically, the magistrate determined that the merits of 

the complaint had been rendered moot because respondent had performed the act which 

relator sought to compel (i.e., respondent had issued a ruling on relator's motion for jailtime credit). No objections have been filed to that decision. 
No. 21AP-6 2

{¶ 3} Finding no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate's decision, 

this court adopts the magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of fact and 

conclusions of law contained therein. In accordance with the magistrate's 

recommendation, we grant respondent's motion and dismiss this action. 

Action dismissed. 

DORRIAN, P.J., and LUPER SCHUSTER, J., concur. 

_________________ 
No. 21AP-6 3 

APPENDIX 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 

 

State ex rel. Diante Davis, : 

 

 Relator, : 

v. : No. 21AP-6 

 

Honorable Judge [Christopher] Brown, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 Respondent. : 

 

 

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

Rendered on March 17, 2021

 

Diante Davis, pro se. 

G. Gary Tyack, Prosecuting Attorney, and Bryan Lee, for 

respondent.

 

IN MANDAMUS ON 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

 

{¶ 4} Relator, Diante Davis, has filed this original action seeking a writ of 

mandamus ordering respondent, the Honorable Judge Christopher Brown, to issue a ruling 

on relator's May 20, 2020, motion seeking accurate jail-time credit. 

Findings of Fact: 

{¶ 5} 1. Respondent is a public official serving as a judge in the Franklin County 

Court of Common Pleas, in Franklin County, Ohio. 

{¶ 6} 2. Relator is a prisoner incarcerated at Noble Correctional Institution. 

{¶ 7} 3. Relator filed his complaint for writ of mandamus with this court on 

January 6, 2021. 
No. 21AP-6 4

{¶ 8} 4. The present complaint alleges that on May 20, 2020, respondent filed a 

motion seeking accurate jail-time credit in Franklin C.P. No. 16CR-5125, which was 

pending before respondent, but respondent failed to issue a ruling on such motion. 

{¶ 9} 5. On June 7, 2020, respondent filed a journal entry denying relator's May 20, 

2020, motion seeking accurate jail-time credit in case No. 16CR-5125. 

{¶ 10} 6. On February 1, 2021, in the present action, respondent filed a motion to 

dismiss, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), asserting relator has no right to the requested relief 

because respondent has already ruled on relator's May 20, 2020, motion seeking accurate 

jail-time credit. 

Conclusions of Law: 

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

respondent's motion to dismiss relator's complaint. 

{¶ 12} In order for this court to issue a writ of mandamus, a relator must ordinarily 

show a clear legal right to the relief sought, a clear legal duty on the part of the respondent 

to provide such relief, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. 

State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967). 

{¶ 13} "A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted tests the sufficiency of the complaint." Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown Mgt., 125 

Ohio St.3d 494, 2010-Ohio-2057, ¶ 11. "In order for a trial court to dismiss a complaint 

under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, it must 

appear beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that 

would entitle the plaintiff to the relief sought." Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp. v. McKinley, 

130 Ohio St.3d 156, 2011-Ohio-4432, ¶ 12. This same standard applies in cases involving 

claims for extraordinary relief. Boles v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 339, 2011-Ohio-5049, ¶ 2. 

{¶ 14} The magistrate may take judicial notice of the pleadings and orders in related 

cases when these are not subject to reasonable dispute, at least insofar as they affect the 

present original action. State ex rel. Nyamusevya v. Hawkins, 10th Dist. No. 19AP-199, 

2020-Ohio-2690, ¶ 33, citing Evid.R. 201(B); State ex rel. Ohio Republican Party v. 

Fitzgerald, 145 Ohio St.3d 92, 2015-Ohio-5056, ¶ 18; and State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 

128 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-229, ¶ 8. Furthermore, a court may take judicial notice of 

pleadings that are readily accessible on the internet. See Draughon v. Jenkins, 4th Dist. No. 

16CA3528, 2016-Ohio-5364, ¶ 26, citing State ex rel. Everhart v. McIntosh, 115 Ohio St.3d 

195, 2007-Ohio-4798, ¶ 8, 10 (a court may take judicial notice of appropriate matters, 
No. 21AP-6 5

including judicial opinions and public records accessible from the internet, in determining 

a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion); and Giannelli, 1 Baldwin's Ohio Practice Evidence, Section 201.6 

(3d Ed.2015) (noting that the rule generally precluding a court from taking judicial notice 

of other cases has been relaxed if the record is accessible on the internet). In addition, courts 

may take judicial notice of appropriate matters in determining a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion 

without converting it to a motion for summary judgment. State ex rel. Findlay Publishing 

Co. v. Schroeder, 76 Ohio St.3d 580-81 (1996); Draughon at ¶ 26 (a court may take judicial 

notice of appropriate matters, including judicial opinions and public records accessible 

from the internet, in determining a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion without converting it to a motion 

for summary judgment). 

{¶ 15} "[M]andamus will lie when a trial court has refused to render, or unduly 

delayed rendering, a judgment." State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger, 99 Ohio St.3d 303, 

2003-Ohio-3631, ¶ 5. However, an action in mandamus will not compel the performance 

of a duty that has already been performed. State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen, 88 Ohio 

St.3d 313, 318 (2000), citing State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel, 84 Ohio St.3d 252-53 (1998). 

{¶ 16} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that the availability of an appeal is an 

adequate remedy at law sufficient to preclude a writ of mandamus. State ex rel. Davies v. 

Schroeder, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2020-Ohio-1045, ¶ 10; State ex rel. White v. Woods, 156 

Ohio St.3d 562, 2019-Ohio-1893, ¶ 8. The availability of an appeal is an adequate remedy 

even if the relator fails to pursue the appeal. Davies at ¶ 10, citing State ex rel. Gaydosh v. 

Twinsburg, 93 Ohio St.3d 576, 579 (2001), and Jackson v. Johnson, 135 Ohio St.3d 364, 

2013-Ohio-999, ¶ 5. 

{¶ 17} In the present matter, because respondent has now performed the act that 

relator sought to compel, i.e., ruling on relator's May 20, 2020, motion seeking accurate 

jail-time credit, the matter is moot, and mandamus will lie. Furthermore, relator has/had 

an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal of the trial court's decision denying his motion 

seeking accurate jail-time credit. Relator's failure to take advantage of his appellate remedy 

does not entitle him to extraordinary relief to relitigate the matter. 

{¶ 18} Accordingly, the magistrate recommends this court grant respondent's 

motion to dismiss relator's complaint for a writ of mandamus. 

 /S/ MAGISTRATE 

 THOMAS W. SCHOLL III 
No. 21AP-6 6

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).