Court Opinion

ID: 9943110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 18:10:52.280742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:13.478205
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State ex rel. Cummings v. Corrigan, 2024-Ohio-668.]

                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                               EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                  COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE EX REL., KENSHAWN
CUMMINGS,                                              :

                Relator,                               :
                                                               No. 113563
                v.                                     :

JUDGE PETER J. CORRIGAN,                               :

                Respondent.                            :

                               JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                JUDGMENT: COMPLAINT DISMISSED
                DATED: February 16, 2024

                                         Writ of Procedendo
                                         Order No. 572105

                                            Appearances:

                Kenshawn Cummings, pro se.

                Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting
                Attorney, for respondent.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:

                   On January 17, 2024, the relator, Kenshawn Cummings, commenced

this procedendo action against the respondent, Judge Peter J. Corrigan, to compel

the judge to rule on his postconviction-relief petition, which he filed on
November 22, 2022, in the underlying cases, State v. Cummings, Cuyahoga C.P.

Nos. CR-16-607962 and CR-16-608614. A review of the docket in those underlying

cases shows that on February 13, 2024, the respondent judge issued a nine-page

journal entry, constituting findings of fact and conclusions of law, that denied

Cummings’s postconviction relief petitions in each case.        This journal entry

establishes that the respondent judge has proceeded to judgment on the subject

motion and that this procedendo action is moot.

              Accordingly, this court sua sponte dismisses Cummings’s procedendo

action as moot. Respondent to pay costs; costs waived. 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).

              Complaint dismissed.

______________________
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and
MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR