State ex rel. Thomas v. Nestor

2021 Ohio 672 (Ohio 2021) · Supreme Court of Ohio · March 11, 2021 · No. 2020-0846

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed dismissal of Lewis Thomas III’s petition for writs of mandamus and procedendo concerning service of a judgment entry under Ohio Civ.R. 58(B). The court held that formal service was unnecessary because the appeal period had not begun to run, so granting mandamus would provide Thomas no benefit. It also held that failure to direct the clerk to serve the entry was not a refusal or delay in proceeding to judgment warranting procedendo.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Maureen O'Connor, Chief Justice; Maureen O'Connor; Eileen T. Gallagher; Patrick F. Fischer; Pat DeWine; Michael P. Donnelly; Melody J. Stewart; Jennifer Brunner
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
March 11, 2021
Docket number
2020-0846
Procedural posture
Appeal as of right from the First District Court of Appeals' dismissal of a petition seeking writs of mandamus and procedendo.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court reviews de novo a lower court's dismissal of a petition for extraordinary-writ relief. Dismissal is proper when, presuming the petition's factual allegations true, it appears beyond doubt that the relator can prove no set of facts warranting relief.
Precedential value
Published Ohio Supreme Court opinion
Parties
Lewis Thomas III, State ex rel. Thomas v. Terry Nestor, Judge, Judge Nestor
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

appellate procedurecivil procedureremediesappellate jurisdiction

Practice areas

Civil procedureExtraordinary writsAppellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Thomas was entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling the successor trial judge to direct the clerk to serve the February 25, 2019 judgment entry under Ohio Civ.R. 58(B).
  2. Whether Thomas was entitled to a writ of procedendo based on the judge's failure to direct the clerk to serve the judgment entry.
  3. Whether the court of appeals properly dismissed the petition despite relying on an erroneous rationale.

Holdings

  1. A court need not grant extraordinary relief in mandamus when the relator would receive no benefit from the requested order. Because Thomas could still timely appeal the final, appealable judgment entry without formal service, he was not entitled to mandamus.
  2. A failure to direct the clerk to serve a judgment entry under Civ.R. 58(B) is not a refusal or delay in proceeding to judgment and does not support a writ of procedendo.
  3. The Supreme Court will not reverse a correct judgment merely because it rests on an erroneous rationale.

Key quotations

Granting Thomas his requested writ of mandamus is therefore of no benefit to him. (¶ 9)
Judge Nestor’s failure to direct the clerk to serve the judgment entry upon the parties under Civ.R. 58(B) is not a refusal or delay in proceeding to judgment. (¶ 12)

Factual background

Thomas, who was incarcerated, sought review of a February 25, 2019 judgment entry denying his motion to correct his sentencing entry. The entry did not direct the clerk to serve it on the parties under Ohio Civ.R. 58(B), and Thomas argued that the lack of formal service prevented him from appealing. The Supreme Court concluded that he could still timely appeal because the appeal period had not begun to run, so compelling service would provide him no benefit.

Procedural history

Thomas petitioned the First District Court of Appeals for extraordinary writs compelling Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Steven Martin, and later Judge Terry Nestor as successor judge, to direct the clerk to serve a February 25, 2019 judgment entry. The court of appeals substituted Judge Nestor and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed, although it rejected the court of appeals' stated rationale and supplied alternative grounds for dismissal.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…