State ex rel. Robinson v. Clark, CA93-06-049

• Citation: 632 N.E.2d 1393,91 Ohio App.3d 627
• Decision Date: 18 January 1994
• Docket Number: No. CA93-06-049,CA93-06-049
• Parties: The STATE ex rel. ROBINSON, a.k.a. Shaheed, v. CLARK, Judge.
• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)

Page 627

91 Ohio App.3d 627

632 N.E.2d 1393

The STATE ex rel. ROBINSON, a.k.a. Shaheed, v. CLARK, Judge.

No. CA93-06-049.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Warren County.

Decided Jan. 18, 1994.

Curtis Robinson, Jr., pro se.

Timothy Oliver, Warren County Pros. Atty., and Keith W. Anderson, Asst. Pros. Atty., for respondent.

JONES, Presiding Judge.

Relator, Curtis Robinson, Jr., filed an original action in this court seeking a writ of mandamus against respondent, Judge Mark Clark of the Warren County Common Pleas Probate Court. Relator is currently incarcerated at the Warren Correctional Institution in Lebanon, Ohio.

Relator filed an application in the probate court to change his name pursuant to R.C. 2717.01. The court notified relator that he had not complied with the procedural requirements of the statute. Relator submitted a second application to the court which was not accepted because relator did not pay the filing fee.

R.C. 2717.01 requires notice of an application for a name change to be published and requires the probate court to hold a hearing on the application. The court is authorized to charge fees in conjunction with the proceedings pursuant to R.C. 2101.16.

In his application for a writ of mandamus, relator asks this court to order respondent to accept his application for a name change without the filing fee and to waive the hearing requirement of R.C. 2717.01. Relator argues that requiring him to pay the filing fee and to attend a hearing infringes upon his free exercise of religion in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

In his motion to dismiss, respondent argues that there is no clear legal duty to waive the filing fee or to waive the hearing requirement. We agree.

In order for a writ of mandamus to issue, relator must show he has a clear right to the relief prayed for, the respondent is under a clear legal duty to perform the requested act, and the relator has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Greene v. Enright (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 729, 590 N.E.2d 1257.

On similar facts, it was held in In re Paxson (June 30, 1992), Scioto App. No. CA91-2008, unreported, 1992 WL 154139, that R.C. 2717.01 does not impermissibly infringe upon a person's free exercise of religion. "The statute applies with equal force to both secular[ly] and religiously motivated name changes and the procedural requirements must be met by prisoners and nonprisoners alike." Id. at 6. The purpose behind...