STATE, HAND, v. CUYAHOGA CTY. PROBATE COURT, 62 Ohio St.3d 110 (1991)

579 N.E.2d 704

[THE STATE, EX REL.] HAND, APPELLANT, v. PROBATE COURT OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY ET AL., APPELLEES.

No. 91-1157Supreme Court of Ohio.Submitted September 17, 1991 —
Decided November 13, 1991.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 61625.

Appellant, Ruby H. Harris, filed an action in procedendo in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County. She states that she is the sister of Lucretia Hand, the ward in a guardianship proceeding in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division (“probate court”). The probate court and Judge John J. Donnelly are the appellees herein.

The court of appeals dismissed Harris’ complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim in procedendo. She appeals as of right.

Ruby H. Harris, pro se.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Prosecuting Attorney, and Colleen C. Cooney, for appellees.

Per Curiam.

Harris purports to seek a writ commanding Judge Donnelly “to proceed with the hearing and * * * determination of this case without further delay * * *.” However, as the court of appeals noted, Harris “does not specify * * * which aspect of the probate court case” has been unduly delayed. Instead, her complaint makes clear that she seeks the writ because she is dissatisfied with the probate court’s choice of a guardian for her sister.

“The writ of procedendo is merely an order from a court of superior jurisdiction to one of inferior jurisdiction to proceed to judgment. It does not in any case attempt to control the inferior court as to what that judgment should be.” State, ex rel. Davey, v. Owen (1937), 133 Ohio St. 96, 106, 10 O.O. 102, 106, 12 N.E.2d 144, 149. Since Harris has alleged no delay in judgment, she has stated no claim in procedendo. The judgment of the court of appeals is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.

Page 111