[Cite as Carley v. State, 2014-Ohio-4483.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 101807

RICHARD E. CARLEY 

RELATOR 

vs. 

STATE OF OHIO

RESPONDENT 

JUDGMENT: 

WRIT DENIED 

Writ of Mandamus 

Motion No. 478347 

Order No. 478816 

RELEASE DATE: October 7, 2014 
FOR RELATOR

Richard E. Carley, pro se 

Inmate # 356-102 

Grafton Correctional Institution 

2500 S. Avon-Belden Road 

Grafton, Ohio 44044 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: James E. Moss 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

Justice Center, 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶1} Relator, Richard E. Carley, has petitioned this court to issue a writ of 

mandamus to compel the trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law 

regarding its denial of his “motion to take judicial notice and administrative notice in the 

nature of a writ of error, coram nobis, and a demand for dismissal for failure to state the 

proper jurisdiction and venue” that was filed in State v. Carley, Cuyahoga C.P. No. 

CR-97-355976-B (May 20, 2014). The trial court denied his motion by order dated June 

3, 2014, and relator’s request for findings of fact and conclusions of law was denied on 

July 18, 2014. 

{¶2} Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss that relator has opposed. For the 

reasons that follow, we grant respondent’s motion to dismiss because relator’s complaint 

for writ of mandamus is fatally defective. 

{¶3} Respondent has moved for dismissal on the grounds that Carley’s complaint 

failed to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a), R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C), R.C. 2731.04, 

and Civ.R. 10(A). Respondent further contends the complaint is subject to dismissal due 

to Carley’s failure to name the proper party. Carley has opposed the motion to dismiss 

by essentially arguing that his noncompliance should be excused due to his status as a pro 

se litigant. 

{¶4} It is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same standard as those 

who are represented by counsel. State ex rel. Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common 

Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d 124, 2009-Ohio-4688, 914 N.E.2d 402, ¶ 1 (affirming dismissal of 
pro se litigant’s complaint for writs of mandamus and procedendo for failure to comply 

with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)). 

{¶5} The complaint must be dismissed for numerous reasons. It does not comply 

with R.C. 2969.25(A) or (C). It improperly designates the State of Ohio as the 

respondent and does not contain the addresses of the parties as required by Civ.R. 10(A). 

Relator failed to provide a separate affidavit specifying the details of his claim as required 

by Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1). 

{¶6} Each of the foregoing grounds requires dismissal of the complaint. See State 

ex rel. Johnson v. Jensen, 140 Ohio St.3d 65, 2014-Ohio-3159, 14 N.E.3d 1039, ¶ 5-6 (a 

petition that names the wrong party is fatally defective and must be dismissed); State ex 

rel. Castro v. Corrigan, 129 Ohio St.3d 342, 2011-Ohio-4059; 952 N.E.2d 497, ¶ 2 

(noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) authorizes dismissal of complaint for writ of 

mandamus); State ex rel. McGrath v. McDonnell, 126 Ohio St.3d 511, 2010-Ohio-4726, 

935 N.E.2d 830 (affirming dismissal of an inmate’s complaint for mandamus for failure 

to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A)); State ex rel. Hopson v. 

Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 135 Ohio St.3d 456, 2013-Ohio-1911, 989 

N.E.2d 49, ¶ 2 (reaffirming finding that “the Eighth District’s reading of Loc.App.R. 

45(B)(1) is reasonable and that it may dismiss a writ case that fails to comply with the 

requirement that an affidavit ‘specify[ ] the details of the claim.’”); Litigaide, Inc. v. 

Custodian of Records for Lakewood Police Dept., 75 Ohio St.3d 508, 664 N.E.2d 521 

(1996) (complaint for mandamus must be dismissed where the complaint was not brought 

in the name of the state on relation of the relator, the respondent objects, and the relator 
fails to seek leave to amend the complaint to comply with R.C. 2731.04). The failure to 

caption an original action properly constitutes sufficient grounds for dismissing the 

complaint. Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 139, 2005-Ohio-5795, 

841 N.E.2d 766; Barry v. Galvin, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 85990, 2005-Ohio-2324, ¶ 2, 

citing Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen Cty., 173 Ohio St. 226, 181 N.E.2d 

270 (1962). 

{¶7} Further, coram nobis is a common law writ that is used to correct errors of 

fact but is not part of Ohio law. Perotti v. Stine, 113 Ohio St.3d 312, 2007-Ohio-1957, 

865 N.E.2d 50, ¶ 7; Lutz v. Mason, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 81173, 2002-Ohio-2265. 

{¶8} For all of the foregoing reasons, respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted.

Relator to pay costs. The clerk of courts is directed to serve notice of this judgment 

upon all parties as provided in Civ.R. 58(B). 

{¶9} Writ dismissed.

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., and 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR