State ex rel. Littlejohn v. Saffold

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State ex rel. Littlejohn v. Saffold, 2017-Ohio-1059.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 105292 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. DONTA D. LITTLEJOHN RELATOR vs. JUDGE SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 503775 Order No. 504799 RELEASE DATE: March 21, 2017 FOR RELATOR Donta D. Littlejohn Inmate No. A682805 1001 Olivesburg Road Mansfield, Ohio 44901 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT Michael C. O’Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center, 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.: {¶1} On December 23, 2016, the relator, Donta Littlejohn, commenced this mandamus action against the respondent, Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, to compel the judge to resolve the petition for judicial release, which Littlejohn filed on June 10, 2016, in the underlying case, State v. Littlejohn, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-15-601868-A. On January 20, 2017, the respondent, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness. Attached to the dispositive motion was a copy of a signed and file-stamped December 27, 2016 journal entry denying Littlejohn’s motion for judicial release. This attachment establishes that the judge has fulfilled her duty to resolve the petition and that Littlejohn has received his requested relief, a ruling on his petition. Littlejohn never filed a response to the dispositive motion. This case is moot. {¶2} Accordingly, this court grants the respondent judge’s motion for summary judgment and denies the application for a writ of mandamus. Relator to pay costs; costs waived. This court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B). {¶3} Writ denied. EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, 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.