Vaughn v. Calabrese
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Vaughn v. Calabrese, 2018-Ohio-4902.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 107569 ANGELO D. VAUGHN RELATOR vs. HONORABLE JUDGE DEENA R. CALABRESE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: WRITS DENIED Writs of Mandamus and Procedendo Motion No. 521147 Order No. 522967 RELEASE DATE: December 5, 2018 FOR RELATOR Angelo D. Vaughn, pro se Inmate No. 531521 Marion Correctional Institution 940 Marion-Williamsport Road Marion, Ohio 43301 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 MELODY J. STEWART, P.J.: {¶1} On August 20, 2018, the relator, Angelo Vaughn, commenced this mandamus and procedendo action against the respondent, Judge Deena R. Calabrese, to compel the judge to rule on a motion for a final, appealable order, which Vaughn filed on July 14, 2017, in the underlying case, State v. Vaughn, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-07-492431-A. On September 14, 2018, the respondent judge, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness and procedural deficiency. Attached to the dispositive motion is a copy of a certified journal entry, filed stamped September 14, 2018, in which the judge denied the motion for a final, appealable order. Vaughn never filed a response. {¶2} The September 14, 2018 journal entry establishes that the judge fulfilled her duty to rule on the subject motion and that Vaughn has received his requested relief, a ruling. writ action is moot. This {¶3} The complaint is defective because it is improperly captioned. Vaughn styled this case as “Vaughn v. Calabrese.” R.C. 2731.04 requires that an application for a writ of mandamus “must be by petition, in the name of the state on the relation of the person applying.” This failure to properly caption a mandamus action is sufficient grounds for denying the writ and dismissing the petition. Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen Cty., 173 Ohio St. 226, 181 N.E.2d 270 (1962), and Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 139, 2005-Ohio-5795, 841 N.E.2d 766. {¶4} Accordingly, this court grants the respondent’s motion for summary judgment and denies the application for writs of mandamus and procedendo. 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). {¶5} Writs denied. MELODY J. STEWART, PRESIDING JUDGE ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., and LARRY A. JONES, SR., 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.
