[Cite as State ex rel. Nicholson v. Russo, 2006-Ohio-3002.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 87980 THOMAS NICHOLSON, STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. Relator vs. JUDGE JOHN RUSSO Respondent DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: JUDGMENT: : : : : : : : : : : ORIGINAL ACTION JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUNE 14, 2006 WRIT OF MANDAMUS Writ Denied. Motion No. 383332 Order No. 384955
APPEARANCES: For Relator: THOMAS NICHOLSON, pro se Inmate No. 440-566 Mansfield Correctional Inst. P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901 WILLIAM D. MASON Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: MARY MCGRATH Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center - 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113
For Respondent:
2 JUDGE DIANE KARPINSKI: {¶ 1} Thomas Nicholson has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus. On February 13, 2004, Nicholson filed an “amended
petition for post-conviction relief and motion for evidentiary hearing” in State v. Nicholson, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-422675. From this court, Nicholson seeks an
order requiring Judge John Russo to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to the amended petition for postconviction relief. Judge Russo has filed a motion for summary
judgment, which we grant for the following reasons. {¶ 2} Initially, we find that Nicholson has failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25, which requires that an affidavit be attached to the complaint for a writ of mandamus and that the affidavit describe each civil action or appeal filed within the previous five years in any state or federal court. Nicholson’s failure to comply
with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25 warrants the dismissal of the complaint for a writ of mandamus. State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio
Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 1998-Ohio-218, 696 N.E.2d 594; Alford v. Winters, 80 Ohio St.3d 285, 1997-Ohio-117, 68 N.E.2d 1242. {¶ 3} In addition, Nicholson’s complaint for a writ of mandamus is moot. Attached to Judge Russo’s motion for summary judgment is
a copy of Judge Russo’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, as issued with regard to the “amended petition for post-conviction
3 relief and motion for evidentiary hearing.”
Judge Russo has
discharged his duty, with regard to the need for findings of fact and conclusions of law. State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty.
Court of Common Pleas (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 658 N.E.2d 723; State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163. {¶ 4} Accordingly, we grant Judge Russo’s motion for summary judgment. Costs to Judge Russo. It is further ordered that the
Clerk of the Eighth District Court of Appeals serve upon all parties notice of this judgment as required by Civ.R. 58(B). Writ denied. _____________________________ DIANE KARPINSKI PRESIDING JUDGE SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCURS KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCURS
