Court Opinion

ID: 9393794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 14:06:18.66527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:55.405056
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Turner v. Turner, 2023-Ohio-1574.]

                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JEFFREY F. TURNER, SR.,                             :

                Relator,                            :
                                                             No. 112661
                v.                                  :

NINA TURNER,                                        :

                Respondent.                         :

                               JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED
                DATED: May 5, 2023

                                         Writ of Mandamus
                                         Order No. 564076

                                              Appearances:

                Jeffrey F. Turner, Sr., pro se.

MARY J. BOYLE, J.:

                On April 28, 2023, Jeffrey F. Turner, Sr., commenced what he termed a

mandamus action relating to the underlying case, Turner v. Turner, Cuyahoga D.R.

No. DR-22-388761. For the following reasons, this court dismisses the writ action,

sua sponte.
              First, Turner did not caption his case. R.C. 2731.04 requires that an

application for a writ of mandamus “must be by petition, in the name of the state on

the relation of the person applying.” This failure to properly caption a mandamus

action is sufficient grounds for denying the writ and dismissing the petition.

Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen Cty., 173 Ohio St. 226, 181 N.E.2d 270

(1962). Moreover, the failure to caption the case correctly creates uncertainty as to

the identity of the respondent. This court has held that this deficiency, which can

cause uncertainty about the relief sought, warrants dismissal. State ex rel. Calloway

v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga Cty., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 71699, 1997

Ohio App. LEXIS 79452 (Feb. 27, 1997); Jordan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of

Common Pleas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96013, 2011-Ohio-1813.

              The requisites for mandamus are well established: (1) the relator

must have a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) the respondent must have a

clear legal duty to perform the requested relief and (3) there must be no adequate

remedy at law. State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus, 33 Ohio St.3d 118, 515 N.E.2d 914

(1987). It is difficult to discern what right Turner is seeking to enforce: whether he

seeks a ruling on his motion for temporary support, a default judgment on the

motion, a default judgment on the entire case, an order that the judge comply with

the judicial canons, an investigation into the judge’s conduct, or something else. “If

a relator has failed to present clearly the claims asserted and the relief requested,

this court may enter judgment against the relator.” State v. Byrge, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 92979, 2009-Ohio-4376, ¶ 2, and State v. Wynn, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 105205, 2017-Ohio-659.

              Accordingly, this court dismisses Turner’s application for a writ of

mandamus. Jeffrey F. Turner, Sr. to pay costs. This court directs the clerk of courts

to serve all parties notice of the judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as

required by Civ.R. 58(B).

            Writ dismissed.

MARY J. BOYLE, JUDGE

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., CONCUR