State ex rel. Thomas v. Ghee, 97-1992
| Decision Date | 04 March 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-1992,97-1992 |
| Citation | 690 N.E.2d 6,81 Ohio St.3d 191 |
| Parties | THOMAS, Appellant, v. GHEE, Chair, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Charles Thomas, pro se.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and J. Eric Holloway, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
Thomas asserts in his propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in granting appellees' motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying his motions for default judgment and to amend his pleading. For the following reasons, we hold that Thomas's propositions are meritless and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
First, as the court of appeals properly determined, Thomas was not entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel appellees to remove the detainer from his record. Because his parole was ultimately revoked, removing the detainer would be futile. See State ex rel. Strothers v. Turner (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 272, 274, 680 N.E.2d 1238, 1239 (). In addition, the pertinent administrative rule does not prohibit the issuance of detainers based on hearsay. Ohio Adm.Code 5120:1-1-31(A) (); cf. Crim.R. 4(A)(1), which permits hearsay to support a finding of probable cause for an arrest warrant.
Second, the court of appeals did not, as Thomas asserts, erroneously rely on the in forma pauperis filing requirements for inmates filing civil actions set forth in R.C. 2969.21 to 2969.27. Although appellees raised this argument, the court of appeals did not base its judgment on these provisions. Therefore, we need not determine the applicability of R.C. 2969.21 et seq.
Third, Thomas was not entitled to a default judgment under Civ.R. 55. Appellees did not fail to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure. Civ.R. 55(A); State ex rel. Shimola v. Cleveland (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 110, 637 N.E.2d 325. They timely filed an answer and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Contrary to Thomas's contention, appellees also did not violate the court of appeals' May 1997 evidence and briefing order because they obtained a stay of that order pending resolution of their motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Fourth, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wellington v. Mahoning Cty. Bd.
...relief like a writ of mandamus must be commenced by filing a complaint or petition rather than a motion"); State ex rel. Thomas v. Ghee (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 191, 193, 690 N.E.2d 6 (party seeking relief "should have filed a complaint or petition for a writ of mandamus instead of a {¶ 23} Th......
-
State v. Calabrese
...no benefit to McGrath. State ex rel. Cotton v. Ghee, 84 Ohio St.3d 54, 1998-Omo-679, 701 N.E.2d 989 and State ex rel. Thomas v. Ghee, 81 Ohio St.3d 191, 1998-Ohio-461, 690 N.E.2d 6; Cf. Kontos. Moreover, the proper remedy for failure to serve is a Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion to vacate and reissu......
-
State ex rel. McCuller v. Calabrese
...to compel a vain act. State ex rel. Cotton v. Ghee, 84 Ohio St.3d 54, 1998-Ohio-679, 701 N.E.2d 989; and State ex rel. Thomas v. Ghee, 81 Ohio St.3d 191, 1998-Ohio-461, 690 N.E.2d 6. {¶ 10} Accordingly, this court grants the respondent's motion for summary judgment and denies the complaint ......
-
State ex rel. Walker v. Ryan
...a vain act. State ex rel. Bona v. Orange, 85 Ohio St.3d 18, 22, 1999-Ohio-431, 706 N.E.2d 771, citing State ex rel. Thomas v. Ghee, 81 Ohio St.3d 191, 192, 1998-Ohio-461, 690 N.E.2d 6. {¶ 13} Assuming that there exists a clear legal right to appointed counsel, mandamus would still not lie b......