Court Opinion

ID: 9926724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-25 16:09:09.855608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:30.205382
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State ex rel. Harris v. Duhamel, 2024-Ohio-259.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO EX REL.                                   :
MASON HARRIS,
                                                        :
                 Relator,
                                                        :       No. 113567
                 v.
                                                        :
MARCEL C. DUHAMEL,                                      :

                 Respondent.                            :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: COMPLAINT DISMISSED
                 DATED: January 24, 2024

                               Writs of Mandamus and Procedendo
                                        Order No. 571413

                                             Appearances:

                 Mason Harris, pro se.

MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J.:

                   Mason Harris (“Harris”), the relator, has filed a complaint for original

actions and seeks writs of mandamus and procedendo. We sua sponte dismiss

Harriss’s complaint for writs of mandamus and procedendo.

                   Initially, we find that Harris has failed to state any claims for

mandamus or procedendo. State ex rel. Peeples v. Anderson, 73 Ohio St.3d 559,
653 N.E.2d 371 (1995). This court possesses no jurisdiction to require the “law firm

of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease along with Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy, to

proceed with answers to [Harris’s] Supreme Court of Ohio Case Number 2022-

1004.” This court’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing judgments and orders of

inferior courts and administrative agencies, not judgments or orders of the Ohio

Supreme Court. See Article IV, Section 3(B)(2), Ohio Constitution; R.C. 2505.02

and 2505.03. See also Article IV, Section 3(B)(1) of the Ohio Constitution. Lakeland

Bolt & Nut Co. v. Grdina, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 89955, 2007-Ohio-2908. In

addition, mandamus or procedendo will not lie to enforce a private right against a

private person, such as an attorney that is not a public officer. State ex rel. Scott v.

Masterson, 173 Ohio St. 402, 183 N.E.2d 376 (1962); Martin v. Martin, 7th Dist.

Carroll No. 07-CA-843, 2007-Ohio-2708.

               Finally, we find that Harris’s complaint for mandamus and

procedendo is procedurally defective for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) and

(C). Specifically, Harris has failed to file an affidavit of prior civil actions as required

by R.C. 2969.25(A). In addition, Harris has failed to provide a certified copy of the

institutional cashier’s statement, where he is incarcerated, setting forth the balance

in his inmate account as required by R.C. 2969.25(C).              The requirements of

R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory and the failure to provide this court with an affidavit of

prior civil actions and a certified institutional cashier’s statement requires dismissal

of Harris’s complaint for mandamus and procedendo. State ex rel. Washington v.

Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 87 Ohio St.3d 258, 719 N.E.2d 544 (1999); State ex rel.
Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 1998-Ohio-218, 696 N.E.2d 594.

The failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 cannot be cured by later filings. Fuqua v.

Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211, 2003-Ohio-5533, 797 N.E.2d 982.

              Accordingly, we sua sponte dismiss Harris’s complaint for mandamus

and procedendo. Costs to Harris. The court directs the clerk of courts to serve all

parties with notice of this judgment and the date of entry upon the journal as

required by Civ.R. 58(B).

              Complaint dismissed.

________________________
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, JUDGE

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, P.J., and
ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR