State ex rel. Csanad v. Saffold

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State ex rel. Csanad v. Saffold, 2017-Ohio-1456.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 105428 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., ADAM CSANAD RELATOR vs. HON. SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED Writ of Procedendo Motion No. 505044 Order No. 505978 RELEASE DATE: April 14, 2017 FOR RELATOR Adam Csanad, pro se Inmate No. A660-494 Grafton Correctional Institution 2500 South Avon Belden Road Grafton, Ohio 44044 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 KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, A.J.: {¶1} Adam Csanad filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo, seeking an order from this court that requires respondent Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold to issue a ruling on a motion to convert court costs to performing community service filed on April 24, 2015 in the underlying case State v. Csanad, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-14-581618. On March 2, 2017, respondent moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the matter is moot, which Csanad has not opposed. We grant the motion for summary judgment. {¶2} Attached to respondent’s motion for summary judgment is a copy of a journal entry, file-stamped February 22, 2017, that demonstrates Csanad’s motion was ruled upon by the trial court — granting his motion to convert remaining court costs to community service. This journal entry therefore establishes that the request for a writ of procedendo is moot. State ex rel. Bortoli v. Dinkelacker, 105 Ohio St.3d 133, 2005-Ohio-779, 823 N.E.2d 448, ¶ 3 (“A writ of procedendo will not issue to compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.”); State ex rel. Jerningham v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 658 N.E.2d 723 (1996); State ex rel. Pettway v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98699, 2012-Ohio-5423, ¶ 2 (trial court’s ruling on motion rendered the request for a writ of procedendo moot). {¶3} Accordingly, the court grants the respondent’s motion for summary judgment and denies the writ. Costs assessed against relator; costs waived. 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). {¶4} Writ denied. KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARY J. BOYLE, J., and SEAN C. 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.