2010-Ohio-3591
No. 2010-CA-00068.Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Stark County.
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 2, 2010.
Writ of Mandamus.
Dismissed.
Marcus Meadows, Pro Se J, for Relator.
John D. Ferrero (0018590), By: Kathleen O. Tatarsky (0017115), for Respondent.
Before: Hon. Julie A. Edwards, P.J., Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J., Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
OPINION
Page 2
GWIN, P.J.
{¶ 1} Relator, Marcus Meadows, has filed a complaint requesting the issuance of a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to rule on Relator’s motion for jail time credit. Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss to which Relator has not filed a Reply.
{¶ 2} The sole allegation raised in the Complaint is whether Respondent should be ordered to rule on Relator’s motion. On April 5, 2010, the trial court issued a ruling on Relator’s motion and awarded Relator 68 days of jail time credit.
{¶ 3} To be entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus, the Relator must demonstrate: (1) a clear legal right to the relief prayed for; (2) a clear legal duty on the respondent’s part to perform the act; and, (3) that there exists no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 23, 26-27, 661 N.E.2d 18 ; State ex rel. Harris v. Rhodes (1978), 5 Ohio St.2d 41, 324 N.E. 2d 641, citing Sta e ex rel. National City Bank v. Bd. of Education (1977)520 Ohio St. 2d 81, 369 N.E.2d 1200.
{¶ 4} The Supreme Court held in Madsen, “Mandamus will not issue to compel an act that has already been performed.”State ex rel. Scruggs v. Sadler, 102 Ohio St.3d 160, 2004-Ohio-2054, 807 N.E.2d 357, ¶ 5. State ex rel. Madsen v. Jones (2005), 106 Ohio St. 3d 178, *179, 833 N.E. 2d 291, **292.
{¶ 5} Because the relief sought has already been rendered by the trial court, Relator has no clear right to the relief prayed for, and the Respondent has no clear legal duty to perform an act which it has already performed. State ex rel. Lewis v. Boggins, 2007 WL 4395630 (Ohio App. 5 Dist.). Therefore, we find the petition for writ of
Page 3
mandamus must be denied. For this reason, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.
{¶ 6} MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED.
{¶ 7} COMPLAINT DISMISSED.
{¶ 8} WRIT DENIED.
{¶ 9} COSTS TO RELATOR.
{¶ 10} IT IS SO ORDERED.
By Gwin, J., Edwards, P.J., Delaney, J., concur
Page 4
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the Writ of Mandamus is dismissed. Costs to Relator.
Page 1