State ex rel. Harris v. Sheehan
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Harris v. Sheehan, 2009-Ohio-4196.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93516 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., MICHAEL HARRIS RELATOR vs. JUDGE BRENDAN J. SHEEHAN RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: COMPLAINT DISMISSED WRIT OF PROCEDENDO MOTION NO. 424139 ORDER NO. 424620 RELEASE DATE: FOR RELATOR August 17, 2009 2 Michael Harris, pro se #564-217 Madison Correctional Inst P.O. Box 740 London, Ohio 43140 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 JAMES J. SWEENEY, J.: {¶ 1} Michael Harris has filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo. Harris seeks an order from this court, which requires Judge Brendan Sheehan to issue rulings with regard to the following motions as filed in State v. Harris, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-518114 and CR-520206: (1) motion in limine prohibiting prosecutor from referring to specific matters filed (pro-se) 2/11/09"; (2) motion to disqualify counsel, filed (pro-se) 2/11/09"; (3) motion to subpoena witnesses in behalf of defendant, filed (pro-se) 2/11/09"; (4) motion to be present at all proceeding filed (pro-se) ; and (5) motion to compel 3 discovery filed (pro-se) (2701.02). Judge Sheehan has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for a writ of procedendo, which we grant for the following reasons. {¶ 2} Initially, we find that Harris has failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25, which requires the attachment of an affidavit to the complaint for a writ of mandamus that describes each civil action or appeal filed within the previous five years in any state or federal court. Harris failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 warrants the dismissal of the complaint for a writ of mandamus. State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 1998-Ohio-218, 696 N.E.2d 594; State ex rel. Alford v. Winters, 80 Ohio St.3d 285, 1997-Ohio-117, 685 N.E.2d 1242. It must also be noted that Harris has failed to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a), which mandates that his complaint for a writ of mandamus must be supported by an affidavit that specifies the details of the claim. State ex rel. Smith v. McMonagle (July 17, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70899; State ex rel. Calabrese (Jan. 18, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70077. {¶ 3} Finally, Harris complaint for a writ of procedendo is moot. On April 21, 2009, Harris was convicted and sentenced with regard to the offenses as charged in CR-518114 and CR-520206. Any pending motions, upon disposition of the underlying criminal cases, are deemed to be denied. State v. Whitaker, Cuyahoga App. No. 83824, 2004-Ohio-5016, ¶ 2. See, also, State ex rel. The V 4 Cos. v. Marshall (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 467, 1998-Ohio-329, 692 N.E.2d 198; State v. Perry, Cuyahoga App. No. 89819, 2008-Ohio-2368 at ¶ 35. {¶ 4} Accordingly, we grant Judge Sheehan s motion to dismiss. Cost to Harris. 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). Complaint dismissed. JAMES J. SWEENEY, JUDGE KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J., and ANN DYKE, 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.
