State v. Brooks
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Brooks, 2010-Ohio-2233.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94578 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. RESPONDENT vs. RAY BROOKS RELATOR JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED Writ of Procedendo Motion No. 432427 Order No. 433670 RELEASE DATE: May 17, 2010 2 FOR RELATOR Ray Brooks, pro se Inmate No. 462-581 Toledo Correctional Institution 2001 East Central Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43608 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 ANN DYKE, J.: {¶ 1} Relator, Ray Brooks, requests that this court compel respondent judge to issue a ruling on the motion for return of property filed by relator in State v. Brooks, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-410781 on March 28, 2006. Although the title on his original filing in this court is motion for procedendo, we will treat this filing as a complaint in procedendo. See Brown v. Synenberg, Cuyahoga App. No. 93757, 2009-Ohio-5499, at ¶1. 3 {¶ 2} Respondent has filed a motion for summary judgment attached to which is a copy of the journal entry denying the motion for return of property and received for filing by the clerk on March 26, 2010. Relator has not opposed the motion. Respondent argues that this action in procedendo is, therefore, moot. We agree. {¶ 3} Additionally, the complaint has several defects. Brooks did not comply with the requirement of R.C. 2969.25 that he file an affidavit describing the actions he has filed in state and federal court during the last five years. He also failed to file an affidavit specifying the details of the claim as required by Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). Each of these defects requires dismissal of the complaint. Morris v. Bur. of Sentence Computation, Cuyahoga App. No. 89517, 2007-Ohio-1444. {¶ 4} We also note that the caption of this case is State ex rel. v. Brooks. That is, Brooks has failed to identify the relator and the respondent. Compare State v. Thomas, Cuyahoga App. No. 89583, 2007-Ohio-1692, at ¶2; State v. Soltau, Cuyahoga App. No. 84671, 2004-Ohio-4232, at ¶4. Furthermore, Brooks has not included the addresses of the parties in the caption as required by Civ.R. 10(A), which may also be a ground for dismissal. 2007-Ohio-2520, at ¶5. Clarke v. McFaul, Cuyahoga App. No. 89447, 4 {¶ 5} Accordingly, respondent's motion for summary judgment is granted. Relator to pay costs. The clerk is directed to serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B). Writ denied. ANN DYKE, JUDGE PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, P.J., and FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
