State ex rel. Taylor v. Corrigan
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Taylor v. Corrigan, 2017-Ohio-2766.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 105498 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. MAURICE P. TAYLOR RELATOR vs. THE HONORABLE BRIAN J. CORRIGAN RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 505245 Order No. 506408 RELEASE DATE: May 10, 2017 FOR RELATOR Maurice P. Taylor, pro se Inmate No. A582889 Warren Correctional Institution P.O. Box 120 Lebanon, Ohio 45036 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT Michael C. O’Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J.: {¶1} Maurice P. Taylor has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus through which he seeks an order that requires Judge Brian J. Corrigan to render a ruling with regard to a pro se motion for reconsideration of sentence filed in State v. Taylor, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-09-519865.1 Judge Corrigan has filed a motion for summary judgment that is granted for the following reasons. {¶2} Initially, we find that Robinson’s complaint for a writ of mandamus is procedurally defective because he has failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A). Pursuant to R.C. 2969.25(A), an inmate that commences a civil action against a government entity or employee must file a sworn affidavit that contains a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court against a government entity or employee. State ex rel. McGrath v. McDonnell, 126 Ohio St.3d 511, 2010-Ohio-4726, 935 N.E.2d 830. {¶3} Finally, attached to Judge Corrigan’s motion for summary judgment is a copy of a judgment entry, journalized on March 8, 2017, that renders Taylor’s request for a writ of mandamus moot. Judge Corrigan denied Young’s pro se motion for reconsideration of sentence. “[R]elief is unwarranted because mandamus * * * will not compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.” 1The State ex rel. relator has incorrectly identified the respondent as “Judge Brian A. [sic] Corrigan.” Sua sponte, we correct the caption of the complaint to reflect the respondent as Judge Brian J. Corrigan. Hopson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 135 Ohio St.3d 456, 2013-Ohio-1911, 989 N.E.2d 49, ¶ 4. {¶4} Accordingly, we grant Judge Corrigan’s motion for summary judgment. Costs waived. The court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties with notice of this judgment and the date of its entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B). {¶5} Writ denied. MARY EILEEN KILBANE, PRESIDING JUDGE ANITA LASTER MAYS, 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.
