Court Opinion

ID: 9960412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 13:08:14.913058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:26.390643
License: Public Domain

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State
ex rel. S.Y.C. v. Floyd, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-1387.]

                                           NOTICE
      This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an
      advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to
      promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65
      South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other
      formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before
      the opinion is published.

                          SLIP OPINION NO. 2024-OHIO-1387
    THE STATE EX REL . S.Y.C., APPELLANT , v. FLOYD, JUDGE, APPELLEE .
  [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
          may be cited as State ex rel. S.Y.C. v. Floyd, Slip Opinion No.
                                     2024-Ohio-1387.]
Procedendo—Mandamus—Writs sought to compel rulings on motions pending
        before trial court—Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing petition affirmed
        because petition is moot.
     (No. 2023-1028—Submitted March 12, 2024—Decided April 16, 2024.)
              APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County,
                              No. 112565, 2023-Ohio-2395.
                                   __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 1} Appellant, S.Y.C., appeals the judgment of the Eighth District Court
of Appeals dismissing her petition for writs of procedendo and mandamus against
appellee, Judge Alison L. Floyd of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas,
Juvenile Division. S.Y.C. brought her petition to compel rulings on motions
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

pending before Judge Floyd, who is overseeing the child-custody cases involving
S.Y.C., her former partner, and their two children. The Eighth District dismissed
S.Y.C.’s petition as moot, finding that Judge Floyd had disposed of the motions.
We affirm.
                 I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       {¶ 2} S.Y.C. and her former partner have had an ongoing dispute over child-
custody matters since 2008. The case began in the Lake County Court of Common
Pleas, Juvenile Division, and was transferred to Cuyahoga County in 2016. The
case has involved multiple appeals, see [J.V.C.] v. [S.Y.C.], 11th Dist. Lake No.
2010-L-008, 2010-Ohio-5401; [J.V.C.] v. [S.Y.C.], 11th Dist. Lake No. 2011-L-
121, 2012-Ohio-2242; [J.V.C.] v. [S.Y.C.], 11th Dist. Lake No. 2012-L-048, 2012-
Ohio-4338; [J.V.C.] v. [S.Y.C.], 11th Dist. Lake No. 2012-L-103, 2013-Ohio-2042;
[J.V.C.] v. [S.Y.C.], 11th Dist. Lake No. 2013-L-092, 2014-Ohio-2454; In re J.C.,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 107292 and 107294, 2019-Ohio-107; In re G.C., 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 109969, 2021-Ohio-2442; In re J.C., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos.
109745 and 109746, 2021-Ohio-2450; In re J.C., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 109747
and 109748, 2021-Ohio-2451; In re J.C., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 111077, 111078,
111149, 111150, 111151, and 111152, 2022-Ohio-3326; In re J.C., 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga Nos. 112898 and 112899, 2024-Ohio-343; petitions for extraordinary
writs, see [S.Y.C.] v. Lawson, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2012-L-118, 2012-Ohio-5831;
State ex rel. S.Y.C. v. Floyd, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106955, 2018-Ohio-2743;
State ex rel. S.Y.C. v. Floyd, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109602, 2020-Ohio-5189;
State ex rel. S.Y.C. v. Floyd, 2021-Ohio-3467, 177 N.E.3d 1046 (8th Dist.); and
affidavits of disqualification, see In re Disqualification of Lawson, 135 Ohio St.3d
1243, 2012-Ohio-6337, 986 N.E.2d 6; In re Disqualification of Floyd, 164 Ohio
St.3d 1242, 2021-Ohio-2820, 173 N.E.3d 529; In re Disqualification of Floyd, 166
Ohio St.3d 1252, 2022-Ohio-919, 187 N.E.3d 579; In re Disqualification of Floyd,
Supreme Court case No. 23-AP-120 (Oct. 6, 2023).

                                         2
                                January Term, 2024

       {¶ 3} On March 27, 2023, S.Y.C. filed a petition for writs of procedendo
and mandamus in the Eighth District. She alleged that Judge Floyd had failed to
rule on “at least seven” pending motions that had been filed between April 2021
and August 2022. Most of the motions concerned child-support and visitation
issues. S.Y.C. asked the Eighth District to issue a writ compelling Judge Floyd to
rule on the pending motions.
       {¶ 4} Judge Floyd filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that S.Y.C.’s petition
was moot. Judge Floyd asserted that the motions identified in S.Y.C.’s petition had
been ruled on or withdrawn or were not a motion and therefore did not require a
decision from the court. Judge Floyd’s motion to dismiss was supported by copies
of some of the motions or filings at issue and of related judgment entries. While
S.Y.C.’s petition was pending, Judge Floyd resolved several of S.Y.C.’s then-
pending motions at a hearing held on May 11, 2023, and journalized those rulings
in a May 22, 2023 judgment entry.
       {¶ 5} In S.Y.C.’s response to Judge Floyd’s motion to dismiss, she argued
that several motions were still not resolved. In her reply to S.Y.C.’s response, Judge
Floyd cited judgment entries that addressed the motions S.Y.C. had referenced in
her response.
       {¶ 6} The Eighth District dismissed S.Y.C.’s petition. 2023-Ohio-2395,
¶ 7. The court found that Judge Floyd had ruled on all the motions that were the
subject of the petition, rendering moot S.Y.C.’s petition. Id. at ¶ 4. The court also
rejected S.Y.C.’s other arguments about Judge Floyd’s rulings, noting that S.Y.C.
was essentially seeking an appellate review of Judge Floyd’s judgments, which is
not the purpose of either procedendo or mandamus. Id. at ¶ 6.
       {¶ 7} S.Y.C. has appealed to this court as of right.

                                          3
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

                                  II. ANALYSIS
                        A. Motion to supplement the record
        {¶ 8} Before the parties filed their briefs in this case, S.Y.C. filed a motion
to supplement the record. Citing S.Ct.Prac.R. 15.08, she asks to submit transcripts
of hearings held before Judge Floyd in July 2022 and May 2023, as well as a
judgment entry issued by Judge Floyd in August 2023. S.Y.C. acknowledges that
these documents were not part of the record in the Eighth District but asserts that
they will provide background for key points in support of her arguments. Judge
Floyd opposes the motion, primarily because the transcripts and the judgment entry
were not part of the record in the Eighth District.
        {¶ 9} S.Ct.Prac.R. 15.08 permits supplementation of the record but is
limited to “any part of the record [that] is not transmitted to the Supreme Court.”
The documents that S.Y.C. seeks to add are not part of the record. In fact, none of
the documents was submitted to the Eighth District in this case—the August 2023
judgment entry did not exist when the Eighth District reached its decision to dismiss
S.Y.C.’s petition, and S.Y.C. has failed to explain why the transcripts were not
made part of the record when those hearings were held prior to the Eighth District’s
reaching its decision. “A reviewing court generally may not add matter to the
record before it and then decide the appeal on the basis of the new matter.” State
ex rel. Harris v. Turner, 160 Ohio St.3d 506, 2020-Ohio-2901, 159 N.E.3d 1121,
¶ 16. The motion to supplement the record is denied.
                                B. Motion for leave
        {¶ 10} After the close of briefing in this court, S.Y.C. filed a motion for
leave to correct her reply brief and attached a copy of her proposed amended reply
brief. Because the time to file her original reply brief has expired, S.Ct.Prac.R.
3.13(B)(3) requires S.Y.C. to obtain leave of court to file her proposed amended
reply brief.

                                          4
                                January Term, 2024

       {¶ 11} The proposed amended reply brief attached to S.Y.C.’s motion for
leave cites J.C., 2024-Ohio-343—the court of appeals’ decision dismissing
S.Y.C.’s appeal of Judge Floyd’s order denying S.Y.C.’s three motions to hold her
former partner in contempt. The court of appeals issued J.C. after the close of
briefing in this court. The day before filing her motion for leave, S.Y.C. filed a
notice of additional authority, citing J.C. S.Y.C.’s proposed amended reply brief
reiterates the arguments in her original reply brief but cites J.C. But S.Ct.Prac.R.
16.08 forbids supplementation of merit briefs except as provided in S.Ct.Prac.R.
3.13 and other rules not applicable here. S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.08 further provides: “If a
relevant authority is issued after the deadline has passed for filing a party’s merit
brief, that party may file a citation to the relevant authority but shall not file
additional argument.”     S.Y.C.’s notice of additional authority already called
attention to J.C., and S.Y.C. has not shown a reason to grant her leave to file her
proposed amended reply brief. Compare State ex rel. Marmaduke v. Ohio Police
& Fire Pension Fund, 147 Ohio St.3d 390, 2016-Ohio-5550, 66 N.E.3d 705,
¶ 24-26 (striking motions for judicial notice that attempted to supplement the merit
brief with additional argument and evidence, which was not permitted by
S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.08). The motion for leave is denied.
                      C. Procedendo and mandamus claims
       {¶ 12} This court reviews de novo the Eighth District’s judgment
dismissing S.Y.C.’s petition. State ex rel. Brown v. Nusbaum, 152 Ohio St.3d 284,
2017-Ohio-9141, 95 N.E.3d 365, ¶ 10. Dismissal of a petition is appropriate “if,
after all factual allegations of the [petition] are presumed true and all reasonable
inferences are made in relator’s favor, it appears beyond doubt that relator can
prove no set of facts warranting relief.” Clark v. Connor, 82 Ohio St.3d 309, 311,
695 N.E.2d 751 (1998). In considering a motion to dismiss, a court generally may
not consider evidence outside the petition. See Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown
Mgt., Inc., 125 Ohio St.3d 494, 2010-Ohio-2057, 929 N.E.2d 434, ¶ 11. An

                                         5
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

exception exists, however, when an event causes a case to become moot. State ex
rel. Ames v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 159 Ohio St.3d 47, 2020-Ohio-
354, 146 N.E.3d 573, ¶ 5.
       {¶ 13} Although S.Y.C. filed a petition for writs of procedendo and
mandamus, the nature of her claims makes procedendo the more appropriate legal
vehicle. This court has noted that while mandamus may be used to compel a court
to issue a decision, procedendo is more appropriate to compel a court to issue a
decision because “ ‘ “[a]n inferior court’s refusal or failure to timely dispose of a
pending action is the ill a writ of procedendo is designed to remedy.” ’ ” (Brackets
added in Dehler.) State ex rel. Doe v. Gallia Cty. Common Pleas Court, 153 Ohio
St.3d 623, 2018-Ohio-2168, 109 N.E.3d 1222, ¶ 14, quoting State ex rel. Dehler v.
Sutula, 74 Ohio St.3d 33, 35, 656 N.E.2d 332 (1995), quoting State ex rel. Levin v.
Sheffield Lake, 70 Ohio St.3d 104, 110, 637 N.E.2d 319 (1994).
       {¶ 14} A writ of procedendo will issue when a court has refused to enter
judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment. State ex rel.
Culgan v. Collier, 135 Ohio St.3d 436, 2013-Ohio-1762, 988 N.E.2d 564, ¶ 7. To
state a claim in procedendo, S.Y.C. must allege facts showing that (1) she has a
clear legal right to require Judge Floyd to proceed, (2) Judge Floyd has a clear legal
duty to proceed, and (3) she lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the
law. State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530, 531-532, 705 N.E.2d 1227
(1999). Procedendo and mandamus claims become moot when a respondent
performs the duty requested. See State ex rel. Roberts v. Hatheway, 166 Ohio St.3d
531, 2021-Ohio-4097, 188 N.E.3d 150, ¶ 5 (procedendo); State ex rel. Cox v.
Youngstown Civ. Serv. Comm., 165 Ohio St.3d 240, 2021-Ohio-2799, 177 N.E.3d
267, ¶ 22 (mandamus).
                            D. S.Y.C.’s claims are moot
       {¶ 15} The Eighth District correctly found that S.Y.C.’s claims are moot.
Neither a writ of procedendo nor mandamus will compel the performance of a duty

                                          6
                                January Term, 2024

that has already been performed. State ex rel. Bechtel v. Cornachio, 164 Ohio St.3d
579, 2021-Ohio-1121, 174 N.E.3d 744, ¶ 9 (procedendo); State ex rel. Davidson v.
Beathard, 165 Ohio St.3d 558, 2021-Ohio-3125, 180 N.E.3d 1105, ¶ 13
(mandamus).
       {¶ 16} In this case, S.Y.C. petitioned the Eighth District to compel Judge
Floyd to issue rulings on “at least seven” motions that she alleged were still pending
after at least seven months. Judge Floyd’s motion to dismiss demonstrated that
most of the motions referenced by S.Y.C. were addressed before S.Y.C. filed her
petition or that they were not a motion and therefore did not require a decision from
the court. The remaining motions were addressed at a hearing during the pendency
of S.Y.C.’s petition. Judge Floyd has therefore provided S.Y.C. with all the relief
she could have received through her procedendo and mandamus claims, rendering
those claims moot.
       {¶ 17} In her brief, S.Y.C. alleges that Judge Floyd still has not ruled on
two motions, one filed on November 15, 2021, and the other filed on December 22,
2021. However, those allegations are not supported by the record.
 E. S.Y.C.’s other arguments are not appropriate for relief under procedendo or
                                     mandamus
       {¶ 18} S.Y.C.’s request for this court to order an evidentiary hearing differs
from her petition’s requested relief. She asks this court to reverse the Eighth
District’s judgment and direct Judge Floyd to “hold an actual evidentiary hearing
and give [S.Y.C.] a fair hearing.” However, her original petition sought an order
compelling a ruling on the motions she alleged were pending a decision. Now that
those decisions have been issued, her brief asks this court to order another hearing,
presumably seeking a different outcome. “An appellant cannot change the theory
of her case and present new arguments for the first time on appeal.” During v.
Quoico, 2012-Ohio-2990, 973 N.E.2d 838, ¶ 43 (10th Dist.), citing State ex rel.

                                          7
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Gutierrez v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 65 Ohio St.3d 175, 177, 602 N.E.2d
622 (1992).
        {¶ 19} S.Y.C. also criticizes how Judge Floyd disposed of her then-pending
motions at the May 2023 hearing. She maintains that she had no notice about the
motions that were to be addressed at the hearing and that Judge Floyd declined to
take any evidence before issuing a ruling on the motions.
        {¶ 20} Neither criticism supports her procedendo or mandamus claims.
Judge Floyd is vested with broad judicial discretion in determining the admissibility
of evidence, Rigby v. Lake Cty., 58 Ohio St.3d 269, 271, 569 N.E.2d 1056 (1991),
and extraordinary writs are not used to control judicial discretion, even if that
discretion was abused, see State ex rel. Mason v. Burnside, 117 Ohio St.3d 1, 2007-
Ohio-6754, 881 N.E.2d 224, ¶ 11. To the extent Judge Floyd’s methods or
decisions are contrary to law, this action is not the appropriate way to challenge
them. See State ex rel. Daniels v. Russo, 156 Ohio St.3d 143, 2018-Ohio-5194, 123
N.E.3d 1011, ¶ 24 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“it is well established that neither
mandamus nor procedendo is a substitute for an appeal”).
                               III. CONCLUSION
        {¶ 21} We affirm the Eighth District Court of Appeals’ judgment
dismissing S.Y.C.’s petition for writs of procedendo and mandamus as moot. We
also deny her motion to supplement the record and her motion for leave to correct
her reply brief.
                                                                Judgment affirmed.
        KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER,
and DETERS, JJ., concur.
                               _________________
        S.Y.C., pro se.
        Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nora
E. Poore, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

                                         8
January Term, 2024

_________________

        9