State ex rel. Ezelle v. Hilow

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State ex rel. Ezelle v. Hilow, 2010-Ohio-5621.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95943 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. AUDWIN EZELLE RELATOR vs. HENRY J. HILOW RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: COMPLAINT DISMISSED Writ of Mandamus Sua Sponte Order No. 439000 RELEASE DATE: November 16, 2010 2 FOR RELATOR Audwin Ezell, pro se Inmate No. 540-881 Marion Correctional Institution P.O. Box 57 Marion, Ohio 43302 FOR RESPONDENT Henry J. Hilow, pro se Mcginty, Hilow & Spellacy Co., LPA 614 W. Superior Avenue Suite 1300 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J.: {¶ 1} The relator, Audwin Ezell, has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus through which he seeks an order that requires the respondent, Henry J. Hilow, to provide copies of discovery and copy thereof of all investigative findings papers; notes of the investigation; photographs; coroner s reports; papers on motion for discovery he may have received from the prosecutor s office; voir dire; and including all paperwork relative to his defense in the case he represented relator in State v. Ezell, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas case No. CR-500481. Sua sponte, we dismiss the 3 relator s complaint for a writ of mandamus, per Civ.R. 12(B)(6), since he fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. {¶ 2} A complaint for a writ of mandamus is a special proceeding which is brought to have this court order an inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person to perform an act which, as a result of an office, trust, or station, the responding party is under a clear legal duty to perform. R.C. 2731.01. See, also, State ex rel. Brammer v. Hayes (1955), 164 Ohio St.373, 130 N.E.2d 795. The relator has failed to establish that the respondent possesses any clear legal duty to provide the requested information or records. In addition, a client attempting to obtain information or records from his attorney concerns a private right against a private person. Mandamus will not lie to enforce a private right against a private person. State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631. See, also, State ex rel. Grahek v. McCafferty, Cuyahoga App. No. 88614, 2006-Ohio-4741; State ex rel. Jones v. Luskin, Cuyahoga App. No. 87185, 2006-Ohio-3686; State ex rel. Tierney v. Jamieson, Cuyahoga App. No. 80302, 2001-Ohio-4148; State ex rel. Rodgers v. Riley (Aug. 9, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 79977. {¶ 3} Accordingly, we dismiss this action sua sponte. Costs to relator. 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). 4 Complaint dismissed. PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, JUDGE KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J., and MARY J. BOYLE, 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.