[Cite as State ex rel. Allen v. Fleegle, 2011-Ohio-5458.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE EX REL. JOHN DALE ALLEN 

 Petitioner 

v. 

MARK C. FLEEGLE, et al. 

 Respondents 

JUDGES: 

Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. 

Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. 

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

Case No. CT2011-0045 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus 

JUDGMENT: Dismissed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: October 20, 2011 

APPEARANCES: 

For Petitioner For Respondents 

JOHN DALE ALLEN JUDGE MARK FLEEGLE 

c/o 28 North 4th Street 401 Main Street 

S.B.4 Zanesville, Ohio 43701 

Zanesville, Ohio 43701 
Muskingum County, Case No. 2011-0045 2

Wise, P. J. 

{¶1} Relator, John Dale Allen, has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus 

requesting this Court issue a writ ordering Respondents, Judge Mark C. Fleegle and 

Judge Jay F. Vinsel, to release Relator from incarceration due to Relator’s medical 

condition. 

{¶2} Initially, we find Relator has failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25 by not filing 

an affidavit detailing his prior civil filings. We will nonetheless address the merits of 

Relator’s Petition. 

{¶3} “A writ of mandamus will not be issued where there is a plain and 

adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. R.C. 2731.05. A civil rights action 

under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.Code constitutes an adequate legal remedy which 

precludes extraordinary relief where state prisoners challenge the conditions of their 

confinement and their claims are limited to alleged violation of their federal 

constitutional and statutory rights. State ex rel. Carter v. Schotten (1994), 70 Ohio 

St.3d 89, 91-92, 637 N.E.2d 306, 309. Section 1983 constitutes an adequate remedy, 

since it can provide declaratory, injunctive (both mandatory and prohibitive), and/or 

monetary relief. 1 Schwartz & Kirklin, Section 1983 Litigation: Claims, Defenses, and 

Fees (2 Ed.1991) 830, Section 16.1.” State ex rel. Peeples v. Anderson (1995), 73 

Ohio St.3d 559, 560, 653 N.E.2d 371, 373. 

{¶4} “Sua sponte dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted is appropriate if the complaint is frivolous or the claimant 

obviously cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint. State ex rel. Bruggeman 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2011-0045 3

v. Ingraham (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 230, 231, 718 N.E.2d 1285, 1287.” State ex rel. 

Kreps v. Christiansen (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 316, 725 N.E.2d 663, 667. 

{¶5} Because it is evident from the Complaint that Relator has or had an 

adequate remedy at law by way of a civil rights action under Section 1983, Title 42, 

U.S.Code, we will not issue the requested writ of mandamus and dismiss this cause for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

By: Wise, P. J. 

Edwards and Delaney, JJ., concur. 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 JUDGES 
Muskingum County, Case No. 2011-0045 4

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE EX REL. JOHN DALE ALLEN : 

 : 

 Petitioner : 

 : 

v. : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

MARK C. FLEEGLE, et al. : 

 : 

 Respondents : Case No. CT2011-0045 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the Petition 

for Writ of Mandamus is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 JUDGES