State ex rel. Smith v. Norton
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Smith v. Norton, 2010-Ohio-4141.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95035 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. RASHAUD SMITH RELATOR vs. GARY NORTON, JR., MAYOR, ET AL. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED Writ of Mandamus Sua Sponte Order No. 436860 2 RELEASE DATE: August 31, 2010 FOR RELATOR Rashaud Smith, pro se Inmate #A580754 Richland Correctional Institution 1001 Olivesburg Road P.O. Box 8107 Mansfield, Ohio 44901 ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT Ronald K. Riley Director of Law City of East Cleveland 14340 Euclid Avenue East Cleveland, Ohio 44112 COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.: {¶ 1} Rashaud Smith has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Smith seeks an order from this court to require the city of East Cleveland, the East Cleveland Police Department, and Gary Norton, the Mayor of the city of East Cleveland, (collectively the City ), to obey the order issued by the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in State v. Smith, Case No. CR-526784. Specifically, Smith seeks the release and return of two motor vehicles, a 2006 Dodge Magnum (Vehicle Identification No. 2D8FV47T76H286941) and a 2004 Cadillac SRX (Vehicle Identification No. 1GYEE63A240163585) as commanded within a journal entry issued by Judge 3 Brendan J. Sheehan in State v. Smith, journalized on January 11, 2010. The City has filed an unopposed answer and memorandum in opposition to [the] complaint for a writ of mandamus. For the following reasons, we decline to issue a writ of mandamus. {¶ 2} Smith seeks a writ of mandamus in an effort to enforce the order for the return of two motor vehicles. The employment of mandamus to enforce a judgment, however, is not popular and widespread because other avenues of enforcement are readily available. Hunt v. Westlake City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1996), 114 Ohio App.3d 563, 568, 683 N.E.2d 803. See, also, State ex rel Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Henson, 96 Ohio St.3d 33, 2002-Ohio-2851, 770 N.E.2d 580; State ex rel. Shemo v. Mayfield Hts., 93 Ohio St.3d 1, 2001-Ohio-1294, 752 N.E.2d 854. The Supreme Court of Ohio has also established that a writ of mandamus will issue only when there exists no alternative remedy in the ordinary course of the law or the alternative remedy is not adequate. See, e.g., Shemo. See, also, State ex rel. DiVincenzo v. Griffing, Trumbull Cty. App. No. 2003-T-0050, 2004-Ohio-1961. {¶ 3} In the instant case, numerous other adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law exist to enforce Judge Sheehan s order. Such adequate remedies include, inter alia, contempt proceedings before Judge Sheehan, the filing of a motion to show cause, or the filing of a motion to enforce judgment. 4 In fact, [t]he court that issued the order sought to be enforced is in the best position to determine if that order has been disobeyed. State ex rel. Bitter v. Missig, 72 Ohio St.3d 249, 252, 1995-Ohio-147, 648 N.E.2d 1355. {¶ 4} Accordingly, we decline to issue a writ of mandamus on behalf of Smith. Costs to Smith. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of Appeals serve notice of this judgment upon all parties as required by Civ.R. 58(B). Writ denied. COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, JUDGE FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and JAMES J. SWEENEY, 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.
