State ex rel. Evans v. Mohr, No. 2018-0452
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | 155 Ohio St.3d 579,122 N.E.3d 1240,2018 Ohio 5089 |
| Docket Number | No. 2018-0452 |
| Decision Date | 20 December 2018 |
| Parties | The STATE EX REL. EVANS, Appellant, v. MOHR, Dir., Appellee. |
155 Ohio St.3d 579
122 N.E.3d 1240
2018 Ohio 5089
The STATE EX REL. EVANS, Appellant,
v.
MOHR, Dir., Appellee.
No. 2018-0452
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Submitted June 26, 2018
Decided December 20, 2018
William H. Evans Jr., pro se.
Michael DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, and George Horvath, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Appellant, William H. Evans Jr., appeals the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals dismissing his complaint for a writ of mandamus against appellee, Gary Mohr, the director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("DRC"). We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
I. Background
{¶ 2} Evans is an inmate at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center. On August 9, 2017, Evans filed a complaint requesting a writ of mandamus to order DRC to remove a federal detainer that Evans alleged had been erroneously placed on his prison record. After some investigation into the matter, DRC removed the detainer.
{¶ 3} Mohr filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that DRC had already removed the detainer from Evans's record. Approximately one week after DRC filed the motion to dismiss, Evans filed a motion for a declaratory judgment under the same case number that was assigned to the complaint for a writ of mandamus. A Tenth District magistrate recommended dismissing the complaint and waiving the costs because DRC's actions had rendered the case moot. Evans filed objections in which he argued that a declaratory judgment should have been granted preventing placement of future detainers. Next, Evans filed a motion for summary judgment in which he again requested that the declaratory judgment be granted and that he be awarded "monetary damages as allowable by law."
{¶ 4} The court of appeals dismissed Evans's complaint as moot and denied Evans's subsequent motions.
II. Legal Analysis
A. Mandamus to compel removal of detainer
{¶ 5} "A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel an act already performed." State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas , 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 279, 658 N.E.2d 723 (1996). Mohr's motion to dismiss established that the relief that Evans sought—removal of "all traces" of the federal detainer placed on his prison record—has been provided. And Evans does not dispute that DRC properly removed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Proposed Charter Petition, CASE NO. 18CA30
...when a "case in controversy" is lacking, the case is moot and "'there will be no appellate review.'" State ex rel. Evans v. Mohr, 155 Ohio St.3d 579, 2018-Ohio-5089, 122 N.E.3d 1240, ¶ 5, quoting Adkins v. McFaul, 76 Ohio St.3d 350, 350, 667 N.E.2d 1171 (1996); accord United States v. Sanch......
-
Stolz v. J&B Steel Erectors, Inc., No. 2017-1245
...equal-protection guarantee in Article I, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution premised on its language, history or early understandings," 155 Ohio St.3d 579 Mole , 149 Ohio St.3d 215, 2016-Ohio-5124, 74 N.E.3d 368, at ¶ 117 (French J....
-
State v. Wilson, 110527
...becomes inappropriate because "'[a] writ of mandamus will not issue to compel an act already performed.'" State ex rel Evans v. Mohr, 155 Ohio St.3d 579, 2018-Ohio-5089, 122 N.E.3d 1240, ¶ 4, quoting Jerninghan at 279. Respondent has issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in the cri......
-
Siliko v. Miami Univ., CA2021-12-162
...a motion for summary judgment and provide the opposing party with notice and an opportunity to respond.'" State ex rel. Evans v. Mohr, 155 Ohio St.3d 579, 2018-Ohio-5089, ¶ 5, quoting Jefferson v. Bunting, 140 Ohio St.3d 62, 2014-Ohio-3074, ¶ 12. However, where a party repeatedly admits to ......
-
In re Proposed Charter Petition, CASE NO. 18CA30
...when a "case in controversy" is lacking, the case is moot and "'there will be no appellate review.'" State ex rel. Evans v. Mohr, 155 Ohio St.3d 579, 2018-Ohio-5089, 122 N.E.3d 1240, ¶ 5, quoting Adkins v. McFaul, 76 Ohio St.3d 350, 350, 667 N.E.2d 1171 (1996); accord United States v. Sanch......
-
Stolz v. J&B Steel Erectors, Inc., No. 2017-1245
...equal-protection guarantee in Article I, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution premised on its language, history or early understandings," 155 Ohio St.3d 579 Mole , 149 Ohio St.3d 215, 2016-Ohio-5124, 74 N.E.3d 368, at ¶ 117 (French J....
-
State v. Wilson, 110527
...becomes inappropriate because "'[a] writ of mandamus will not issue to compel an act already performed.'" State ex rel Evans v. Mohr, 155 Ohio St.3d 579, 2018-Ohio-5089, 122 N.E.3d 1240, ¶ 4, quoting Jerninghan at 279. Respondent has issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in the cri......
-
Siliko v. Miami Univ., CA2021-12-162
...a motion for summary judgment and provide the opposing party with notice and an opportunity to respond.'" State ex rel. Evans v. Mohr, 155 Ohio St.3d 579, 2018-Ohio-5089, ¶ 5, quoting Jefferson v. Bunting, 140 Ohio St.3d 62, 2014-Ohio-3074, ¶ 12. However, where a party repeatedly admits to ......