[Cite as Williams v. Russo, 2014-Ohio-1439.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 100450

MICAH WILLIAMS

RELATOR

vs. 

JUDGE JOHN R. RUSSO

RESPONDENT 

JUDGMENT: 

WRIT DENIED 

Writ of Procedendo 

Motion No. 470162 

Order No. 472310 

 

RELEASE DATE: March 28, 2014 
FOR RELATOR 

 

Micah Williams, pro se 

Inmate No. 512-346 

Marion Correctional Institution 

940 Marion-Williamsport Road 

Marion, OH 43302-0057 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: James E. Moss 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

Justice Center - 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, OH 44113 
ii

KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.: 

{¶1} Micah Williams has filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo, 

with “alternative relief requested.” Williams advances a number of arguments 

attacking his plea, conviction, sentence, and the court’s jurisdiction to preside 

over his criminal case. However, he also seeks an order from this court 

directing Judge John Russo to issue a ruling on his “motion to vacate or set 

aside sentence judgment, and conviction” that was filed on April 22, 2013, in 

State v. Williams, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-05-469067. Williams concedes in his 

pleadings that a ruling on that motion would render “this Writ of Procedendo” 

moot. Respondent has filed a motion for summary judgment indicating that 

the writ is moot because the subject motion was denied by an order dated 

November 1, 2013, and because Williams is not entitled to a writ of 

procedendo on any of his remaining claims. Williams has not opposed 

respondent’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, we 

grant Judge Russo’s motion for summary judgment. 

{¶2} Respondent notes that Williams failed to comply with R.C. 

2969.25, which requires the attachment of an affidavit to the complaint for a 

writ of procedendo that describes each civil action or appeal filed within the 
previous five years in any state or federal court. Williams’s failure to comply 

with R.C. 2969.25 warrants the dismissal of the complaint for a writ of 

procedendo. State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 

1998-Ohio-218, 696 N.E.2d 594; Alford v. Winters, 80 Ohio St.3d 285, 

1997-Ohio-117, 685 N.E.2d 1242. 

 {¶3} The writ of procedendo is merely an order from a court of superior 

jurisdiction to one of inferior jurisdiction to proceed to judgment. Yee v. Erie 

Cty. Sheriff’s Dept., 51 Ohio St.3d 43, 553 N.E.2d 1354 (1990). Procedendo is 

appropriate when a court has either refused to render a judgment or has 

unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment. State ex rel. Watkins v. Eighth 

Dist. Court of Appeals, 82 Ohio St.3d 532, 1998-Ohio-190, 696 N.E.2d 1079. 

However, the writ will not issue to control what the judgment should be, nor 

will it issue for the purpose of controlling or interfering with ordinary court 

procedure. Thus, procedendo will not lie to control the exercise of judicial 

discretion. Moreover, it will not issue when there is an adequate remedy at 

law. State ex rel. Bd. of State Teachers Retirement Sys. of Ohio v. Davis, 113 

Ohio St.3d 410, 2007-Ohio-2205, 865 N.E.2d 1289, ¶ 43 (“procedendo is not 

appropriate when the party seeking the writ has an adequate remedy in the 

ordinary course of law, e.g., appeal.”) Further, this court has no jurisdiction to 

issue a declaratory judgment in an original action. State ex rel. Ormond v. 

Solon, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92272, 2009-Ohio-1097, ¶ 10, fn. 3, citing, 
State ex rel. Neer v. Indus. Comm., 53 Ohio St.2d 22, 371 N.E.2d 842 (1978).

{¶4} The attachment to the respondent’s summary judgment motion 

establishes that Judge Russo has proceeded to judgment on the motion to 

vacate sentence, judgment, and conviction. Respondent denied the motion and 

specifically found that “any claim or argument with respect to subject matter 

jurisdiction has been waived by [Williams’s] knowing, intelligent, and 

voluntary guilty plea.” Williams has or had an adequate remedy at law to 

challenge all of the remaining allegations of his pleading, including the 

validity of the arrest warrant, the effectiveness of his representation, the 

legality of his arrest, and the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over this matter. 

In fact, Williams pursued a direct appeal and has appealed the trial court’s 

order dated November 1, 2013. 

{¶5} Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is granted and the 

application for a writ of procedendo is denied. Costs assessed against relator, 

however, costs are waived. This court further orders the Clerk of the Eighth 

District Court of Appeals to serve notice of this judgment upon all parties as 

required by Civ.R. 58(B). 

{¶6} Writ denied. 

_________________________________________ 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE 
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., CONCUR