Court Opinion

ID: 9957637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 18:08:38.259433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:31.551567
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State ex rel. Hayes v. Phipps, 2024-Ohio-1286.]

                               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                   TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

[State ex rel.] Shareiff Hayes,                       :

                  [Relator],                          :
v.                                                                 No. 23AP-562
                                                      :
The Honorable Judge                                            (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Karen Held Phipps,                                    :

                 [Respondent].                        :

                                             D E C I S I O N

                                       Rendered on April 4, 2024

                 On brief: Sharieff Hayes, pro se.

                 On brief: G. Gary Tyack, Prosecuting Attorney, and Jennifer
                 Warmolts, for Honorable Karen Held Phipps.

                                   IN MANDAMUS/PROCEDENDO
                                    ON SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL

MENTEL, P.J.

        {¶ 1} Complainant, Sharieff Hayes, filed a complaint requesting a writ of
mandamus or procedendo, or, in the alternative, a writ of habeas corpus, after respondent,
the Honorable Karen Held Phipps of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, accepted
his guilty plea and revoked his bond in his pending criminal case. Mr. Hayes believes that
Judge Phipps failed to enter proper judgment on his bond revocation and requests that this
court order her to prepare and enter judgment. He also seeks a writ of habeas corpus
because he believes his detention is unlawful. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, arguing that Mr. Hayes has an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal and is
therefore not entitled to a writ of mandamus.
No. 23AP-562                                                                                2

       {¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals,
this matter was referred to a magistrate. The magistrate recommends that we dismiss
Mr. Hayes’ complaint sua sponte for failure to comply with a number of mandatory
pleading requirements of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.
       {¶ 3} Mr. Hayes filed no objection to the magistrate’s decision. “If no timely
objections are filed, the court may adopt a magistrate’s decision, unless it determines that
there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision.”
Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(c). Our review of the magistrate’s decision reveals no error of law or other
evident defect. See, e.g., State ex rel. Alleyne v. Indus. Comm., 10th Dist. No. 03AP-811,
2004-Ohio-4223 (adopting the magistrate’s decision where no objections filed). We note
that Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b) allowed for objections, thereby providing Mr. Hayes with “notice
and an opportunity to be heard on the propriety of the [magistrate] taking judicial notice
of” the docket in Mr. Hayes’ criminal case when preparing the decision recommending sua
sponte dismissal. State ex rel. Roush v. Hickson, 173 Ohio St.3d 10, 2023-Ohio-1696, ¶ 1,
10 (per curiam) (holding that “a court must give the parties notice and an opportunity to be
heard before taking notice of facts contained in another court’s docket and relying on those
facts to sua sponte dismiss a complaint” in mandamus “for failure to comply with R.C.
2969.25”). Even so, the magistrate’s decision does not rely on judicially noticed facts to
identify the pleading deficiencies mandating dismissal, but includes such facts for purposes
of descriptive completeness and context. We emphasize as well the magistrate’s statement
that the dismissal of Mr. Hayes’ complaint is without prejudice.
       {¶ 4} Finding no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate’s decision,
we adopt it in its entirety, dismiss the complaint sua sponte, and overrule respondent’s
motion as moot.
                                                                     Complaint dismissed;
                                                                 motion overruled as moot.

                            JAMISON and BOGGS, JJ., concur.
                                _________________
No. 23AP-562                                                                                                  3

                                              APPENDIX
                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                   TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
State of Ohio,                                :

                                                        :
v.                                                                               No. 23AP-562
                                                        :

Sharieff Hayes,                                         :                  (REGULAR CALENDAR)

                              MAGISTRATE’S DECISION

                                   Rendered on November 9, 2023

                 G. Gary Tyack, Prosecuting Attorney, and Jennifer Warmolts,
                 for Honorable Karen Phipps.

                 Sharieff Hayes, pro se.

                                  IN MANDAMUS/PROCEDENDO
                                   ON SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
                                         ON MOTIONS

        {¶ 5} Complainant Sharieff Hayes has filed a complaint requesting a writ of
mandamus/procedendo. In the alternative, Hayes seeks a writ of habeas corpus.
I. Findings of Fact
        {¶ 6} 1. Hayes is the defendant in State of Ohio v. Hayes, Franklin C.P. No. 20CR-
3511 (“Case No. 20CR-3511”).1

1 A court may take judicial notice of facts not subject to reasonable dispute insofar as they affect the current

original action. See State ex rel. Ohio Republican Party v. Fitzgerald, 145 Ohio St.3d 92, 2015-Ohio-5056,
¶ 18 (taking judicial notice of information presented in an unopposed motion and also available on a
publicly accessible website); State ex rel. Mobley v. O’Donnell, 10th Dist. No. 20AP-193, 2021-Ohio-715,
¶ 9, quoting State ex rel. Nelson v. Russo, 89 Ohio St.3d 227, 228 (2000) (“Ohio courts may take judicial
notice in ‘writ action[s] without converting * * * [a] dismissal motion to a motion for summary judgment.’
”); Evid.R. 201(B). With regard to actions in procedendo, a court is permitted to consider the record of the
trial court and judicial decisions provided by the respondent in determining whether the respondent has
already performed the act sought in the complaint. State ex rel. Sevilla v. Cocroft, 10th Dist. No. 21AP-167,
No. 23AP-562                                                                                                4

        {¶ 7} 2. The Honorable Karen Phipps, judge of the Franklin County Court of
Common Pleas, General Division, is presiding over Case No. 20CR-3511.
        {¶ 8} 3. Earlier this year, Hayes filed two appeals from Case No. 20CR-3511 to this
court. In both cases, this court dismissed Hayes’s appeals for lack of a final appealable
order. State of Ohio v. Hayes, 10th Dist. No. 23AP-481 (Aug. 10, 2023 Journal Entry of
Dismissal); State of Ohio v. Hayes, 10th Dist. No. 23AP-536 (Sept. 12, 2023 Journal Entry
of Dismissal).
        {¶ 9} 4. On September 21, 2023, Hayes filed his complaint in this court requesting
a writ of mandamus/procedendo.
        {¶ 10} 5. In his complaint, Hayes states that he is “request Original Action
proceeding by way of a writ of mandamus/procedendo pursuant to Section 3 Article 4 of
The Ohio Constitution to order a ‘trial court final entry’ or a ‘judgment/order entry
journalised’ in the instant case by Trial court Judge Karen Held Phipps.” (Sic passim.)
(Compl. at 1-2.) Listing Case No. 20CR-3511 in his complaint, Hayes takes issue with
Judge Phipps’s alleged failure to file a “trial court final entry or a judgement order entry.”
(Compl. at 1.) Hayes states that “judgment entries in the instant case are all filed the day
of the issued order or the following business except for the judgment entries needed on
orders issued in bond hearings scheduled June 28, 2023; August 23, 2023.” (Sic passim.)
(Compl. at 2.) Hayes alleges “the intent of delay or ignoring of bond hearing judgment
entries is relevant considering the trial court’s statements in court transcripts; May 04,
2023 page (3); May 15, 2023 pages (11 and 33); June 28, 2023 page (9);, where the trial
court judge is well aware of the order issued from a verbal order denying bail and
remanding Mr. Hayes to jail on prior bond hearings.” (Sic passim.) (Compl. at 2.) Hayes
alleges such actions are “unconstitutional according to the statutory regime set by the
General Assembly in Section 2937.222 of the Ohio Revised Code; and Section 9 Article 1
of The Ohio Constitution and renders the right to appeal baseless where there is a
Constitutional order of action with no ‘final appealable order’ pursuant to
R.C. 2937.222(D), which constitutes abuse of the procedural due process of the law which
is a direct violation of the Fifth Amendment, U.S. Const. Amend. V.” (Sic passim.) (Compl.

2021-Ohio-4280, ¶ 6. Based on the foregoing, it is appropriate in this instance to take judicial notice of the
docket of the common pleas court in Case No. 20CR-3511.
No. 23AP-562                                                                                          5

at 2.) Hayes requests “this court to ensure that the judgment entries are in compliance
with the statutory regime set by the General Assembly for Section 2937.222 of the Ohio
Revised Code; and Section 9 Article 1 of The Ohio Constitution.” (Sic passim.) (Compl.
at 3.)
         {¶ 11} 6. Hayes also states in his complaint: “If the court could let this original
Action complaint serve as an alternative writ of way of habeas corpus to investigate the
legality of Mr. Hayes detention without bail pursuant to R.C. 2937.222 and Ohio
constitution, Art 1 Sec 9 reference to his dismissed bond appeal case.” (Sic passim.)
(Compl. at 4.) Finally, Hayes “also request[s] this court to reconsider the law and
argument pertaining to: State vs. Sharieff Hayes * * * 23-AP-000536 10th District.” (Sic
passim.) (Compl. at 4.)
         {¶ 12} 7. On October 18, 2023, Judge Phipps filed a motion to dismiss. In the
motion to dismiss, Judge Phipps states that “it is unclear specifically what [Hayes] wishes
to obtain through this request.” (Mot. at 4.) Judge Phipps states that Hayes is “currently
a defendant in Franklin County Commons [sic] Pleas Court case number 20-CR-3511,
with the Honorable Judge Karen Phipps presiding” and that he “is charged with
possession of drugs, a felony of the second degree, in violation of Ohio Revised Code
2925.11.” (Mot. at 3.) Judge Phipps “interprets his request to ask this court to review and
compel Respondent to modify [Hayes’s] current bond in 20-CR-3511.” (Mot. at 4.)
         {¶ 13} With regard to R.C. 2937.222, Judge Phipps states that “[u]pon his plea of
guilty, [Hayes’s] bond was revoked upon judicial discretion.” (Mot. at 7-8.) Judge Phipps
states that “[t]here is little Ohio legal authority discussing the applicability of
R.C. 2937.222 to circumstances of bond revocation.” (Mot. at 8.) Nevertheless, Judge
Phipps states that “this court has previously determined that should the trial court be
required to follow R.C. 2937.222, an adequate remedy exists by way of appeal.” (Mot. at
8.)2
         {¶ 14} 8. Hayes filed a response on October 30, 2023.

II. Discussion and Conclusions of Law

2 The magistrate notes that review of the docket in Case No. 20CR-3511 reveals an August 15, 2023 motion

for bond hearing filed by Hayes. A notice of hearing filed August 15, 2023 provides that a bond hearing
would be held on August 23, 2023. The docket does not appear to reflect an entry denying bail or bond
following the August 15, 2023 motion.
No. 23AP-562                                                                                6

       {¶ 15} Hayes’s complaint must be dismissed. The Local Rules of the Tenth District
Court of Appeals make plain that original actions are governed by the Ohio Rules of Civil
Procedure, as supplemented by the local rules. Loc.R. 2(B). Loc.R. 13(A) provides that
“[a]n original action, other than habeas corpus, shall be instituted by the filing of a
complaint.” Here, the complaint fails to comply with the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure in
multiple respects.
       {¶ 16} Civ.R. 10(A) requires that the title of the action in the complaint “shall
include the names and addresses of all the parties.” Civ.R. 10(A). Hayes’s complaint does
not include the names of all the parties to this original action, but rather appears to list
the parties in his underlying criminal case in Case No. 20CR-3511. Hayes’s complaint also
fails to comply with the requirement in Civ.R. 10(A) to list the addresses of all the parties.
These defects are fatal to the complaint. State ex rel. Johnson v. Jensen, 140 Ohio St.3d
65, 2014-Ohio-3159, ¶ 5 (finding complaint in procedendo naming the wrong party as the
respondent was “fatally defective” and affirming the dismissal of the complaint); State ex
rel. Sherrills v. State, 91 Ohio St.3d 133, 133 (2001) (holding that complaint for writ of
mandamus or habeas corpus was “defective because [the petitioner] failed to name the
proper respondents and did not include their addresses” and affirming dismissal);
Kneuss v. Sloan, 146 Ohio St.3d 248, 2016-Ohio-3310, ¶ 11 (stating that “a petitioner’s
failure to list the proper parties and their respective addresses in the case caption renders
a habeas petition or complaint defective”); Heine v. Crall, 10th Dist. No. 93AP-65, 1993
Ohio App. LEXIS 2616 (May 18, 1993) (“Pursuant to Civ.R. 10(A), a complaint must
contain the names and addresses of all parties except for a defendant whose name is
initially unknown. This requirement is mandatory.”); Cousino v. State, 6th Dist. No. L-
06-1368, 2007-Ohio-2142, ¶ 6 (finding petition for writ of mandamus “defective on its
face” where “the caption does not list the court or any judge of the court as the respondent
to the petition for a writ of mandamus and fails to designate any addresses for service”).
See also State ex rel. Adams v. Winkler, 166 Ohio St.3d 412, 2022-Ohio-271, ¶ 11;
Greene v. Turner, 151 Ohio St.3d 513, 2017-Ohio-8305, ¶ 8; Nikooyi v. Cuyahoga Cty.
Prosecuting Dept., 8th Dist. No. 109716, 2020-Ohio-3730, ¶ 6.
       {¶ 17} Hayes’s complaint additionally does not comply with the requirement in
Civ.R. 10(B) that “[a]ll averments of claim or defense shall be made in numbered
No. 23AP-562                                                                              7

paragraphs, the contents of each of which shall be limited as far as practicable to a
statement of a single set of circumstances.” See Discover Bank v. Schiefer, 10th Dist. No.
09AP-1178, 2010-Ohio-2980, ¶ 12.
       {¶ 18} Furthermore, the complaint is defective with regard to Hayes’s claims for
relief in mandamus and habeas corpus. With regard to his mandamus claim, Hayes’s
complaint fails to caption the complaint “in the name of the state on the relation of the
person applying” in compliance with R.C. 2731.04. This failure to comply with the
statutory   requirements    renders   the   mandamus      claim    subject   to   dismissal.
Page v. Geauga Cty. Probate & Juvenile Court, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-2491, ¶ 2;
Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas, 173 Ohio St. 226 (1962). Similarly, insofar as Hayes’s
complaint seeks relief in habeas corpus, the complaint fails to comply with the mandatory
requirements of R.C. 2725.04. See Robinson v. McConahay, 171 Ohio St.3d 235, 2023-
Ohio-498, ¶ 8 (finding habeas corpus petition “fatally defective because [the petitioner]
failed to satisfy the verification requirements of R.C. 2725.04” because it “does not
contain a declaration swearing to the truth of the statements contained therein or proof
that it was verified in the presence of a notary public”); McDonald v. Black, 169 Ohio St.3d
443, 2022-Ohio-3938, ¶ 6; State ex rel. Rohrig v. Columbus, 10th Dist. No. 22AP-241,
2023-Ohio-1983, ¶ 15 (stating that the “proper party in a petition for habeas corpus is the
jailer or warden who presently has legal custody of the individual”). Finally, insofar as
Hayes seeks review of this court’s prior entries dismissing his appeals for lack of final
appealable order, an action in mandamus, procedendo, or habeas corpus is an original
action, not an avenue for reconsideration of a court’s decision in a prior appeal. See
generally State ex rel. Fred Stecker Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers
Bd., 18 Ohio St.3d 391, 394 (1985) (stating that “collateral attacks cannot be maintained
by an action in mandamus”).
       {¶ 19} Although Hayes is proceeding in this matter pro se, he is not excused from
compliance with the applicable statutes, rules of procedure, or local rules of this court.
“ ‘It is well-established that pro se litigants are presumed to have knowledge of the law
and legal procedures and that they are held to the same standard as litigants who are
represented by counsel.’ ” State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d 352, 2003-Ohio-
6448, ¶ 10, quoting Sabouri v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 145 Ohio App.3d 651,
No. 23AP-562                                                                               8

654 (10th Dist.2001). “A litigant proceeding pro se can neither expect nor demand special
treatment.” Rizzo-Lortz v. Erie Ins. Group, 10th Dist. No. 17AP-623, 2019-Ohio-2133,
¶ 18. “ ‘In civil cases, the same rules, procedures and standards apply to one who appears
pro se as apply to those litigants who are represented by counsel.’ ” Isreal v. Franklin Cty.
Commrs., 10th Dist. No. 20AP-51, 2021-Ohio-3824, ¶ 9, quoting Fields v. Stange, 10th
Dist. No. 03AP-48, 2004-Ohio-1134, ¶ 7. See State ex rel. Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court
of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d 124, 2009-Ohio-4688, ¶ 1 (stating that “mere fact that
[the appellant] is a pro se litigant does not entitle him to ignore the requirements of the
local appellate rule”). Finally, while Hayes’s complaint must be dismissed for failing to
comply with procedural requirements, the magistrate notes that such dismissal is not a
dismissal on the merits.
       {¶ 20} Accordingly, it is the decision and recommendation of the magistrate that
Hayes’s complaint should be sua sponte dismissed. Judge Phipps’s October 18, 2023
motion to dismiss is rendered moot.

                                              /S/ MAGISTRATE
                                              JOSEPH E. WENGER IV

                              NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

              2.     Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) provides that a party shall not
              assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual
              finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically
              designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under
              Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and specifically
              objects to that factual finding or legal conclusion as required
              by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b). A party may file written objections to
              the magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of the filing of
              the decision.