Clements v. Saffold
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Clements v. Saffold, 2004-Ohio-5019.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 85028 TAWANA LARKINS CLEMENTS Relator vs. SHIRLEY S. SAFFOLD, JUDGE Respondent : : : : : : : : : : ORIGINAL ACTION JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: WRIT OF MANDAMUS JUDGMENT: Writ Denied. Motion No. 362932 Order No. 363191 APPEARANCES: For Relator: TAWANA LARKINS CLEMENTS, pro se 4300 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Cleveland, Ohio For Respondent: 44105 WILLIAM D. MASON Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: CHARLES E. HANNAN, JR. Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center - 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 2 Judge James J. Sweeney: {¶ 1} On July 29, 2004, relator, Tawana Larkins Clements, commenced this mandamus action against the respondent, Judge Shirley Saffold, to compel her to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. On August 12, 2004, the respondent, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, filed a motion to dismiss. following reasons, we grant the motion to dismiss. the petition, Clements filed a motion for the For the According to assistance of unlicensed counsel in Clements v. Schottenstein Stores Corp., Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-04-526581. May 12, 2004, Judge Saffold denied that motion. Clements filed a motion requesting that Judge On Thereafter, Saffold issue findings of fact and conclusions of law pertaining to this denied motion, which Judge Saffold also denied. {¶ 2} Initially, defective. we note that the petition is fatally Clements failed to support her complaint with an affidavit specifying the details of the claim as required by Local Rule 45(B)(1)(a). State ex rel. Wilson v. Calabrese (Jan. 18, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70077; State ex rel. Smith v. McMonagle (July 17, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70899. {¶ 3} Additionally, Clements petition is defective since it is improperly captioned. A petition for a writ of mandamus must be brought in the name of the state, on relation of the person applying. Clements failure to properly caption her petition 3 constitutes sufficient reason for dismissal. Allen v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen Cty. (1962), 173 Ohio St. 226, 181 N.E.2d 270; Dunning v. Judge Cleary (Jan. 11, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 78763. {¶ 4} Notwithstanding the above, in order for this court to issue a writ of mandamus, it must be established that: 1) the relator possesses a clear legal right to the relief sought; 2) the respondent possesses a clear legal duty to perform the requested act; and 3) the relator possesses no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Manson v. Morris (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 440, 613 N.E.2d 232, citing State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 451 N.E.2d 225. {¶ 5} In her motion to dismiss, Judge Saffold argues that Clements failed to establish that she has a clear legal right to obtain, or that Judge Saffold is under a clear legal duty, to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. We agree. {¶ 6} Accordingly, we grant Judge Saffold s motion to dismiss. Relator to bear costs. It is further ordered that the clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and date of entry pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B). Writ dismissed. JAMES J. SWEENEY PRESIDING JUDGE 4 COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., CONCURS DIANE KARPINSKI, J., CONCURS
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.
