Case Name: The State ex rel. Simms, Appellant, v. Sutula, Judge, Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1998-02-18
Citations: 81 Ohio St. 3d 110
Docket Number: No. 97-1812
Parties: The State ex rel. Simms, Appellant, v. Sutula, Judge, Appellee.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 81
Pages: 110–111

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Simms, Appellant, v. Sutula, Judge, Appellee.
[Cite as State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 110.]
(No. 97-1812
Submitted December 2, 1997
Decided February 18, 1998.)
Timothy Simms, Jr., pro se.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. The court of appeals correctly held that original'actions for extraordinary relief, e.g., a writ of procedendo, must be commenced by filing a complaint or petition rather than a motion. Civ.R. 3(A) ("A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court ."); Loc.App.R. 8(B)(1) of the Court of Appeals .for the Eighth Appellate District ("These original actions shall be instituted by the filing of a verified complaint ."); cf. Myles v. Wyatt (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 191, 580 N.E.2d 1080, 1081, where we affirmed the dismissal of a motion for a writ of mandamus.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.