Summary
The Eleventh District Court of Appeals of Ohio dismissed without prejudice a petition for a writ of procedendo seeking to compel a judge to rule on a motion for appointment of counsel. The court held that the 19-day delay was not undue and that the inmate failed to comply with the filing requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C).
Holdings
- A delay of only 19 days between filing a motion and filing a petition for procedendo is minimal and does not constitute the undue delay necessary to support issuance of the writ.
- Compliance with the mandatory filing requirements of R.C. 2969.25 is required for an inmate filing a civil action, including a procedendo petition, and failure to comply is a proper basis for dismissal.
Questions Presented
- Whether a petition for writ of procedendo states a claim when filed only 19 days after the underlying motion was filed.
- Whether an inmate's petition for writ of procedendo must comply with the filing requirements of R.C. 2969.25.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (8)
- State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger, 2003-Ohio-3631(cited_as_authority)
- State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 1995-Ohio-26(cited_as_authority)
- State ex rel. Agosto v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2008-Ohio-4607(cited_as_authority)
- State ex rel. Nalls v. Russo, 2002-Ohio-4907(cited_as_authority)
- Berthelot v. Dezso, 1999-Ohio-100(cited_as_authority)
- State ex rel. Dehler v. Sutula, 74 Ohio St.3d 33(cited_as_authority)
- Robinson v. State, 2021-Ohio-3865(cited_as_authority)
- State ex rel. Swain v. Adult Parole Auth., 2017-Ohio-9175(cited_as_authority)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…