State ex rel. Curry v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Curry v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2019-Ohio-799.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 107904 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. RONALD CURRY RELATOR vs. CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND JUDGE JOAN SYNENBERG RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 523757 Order No. 525929 RELEASE DATE: March 6, 2019 . FOR RELATOR Ronald Curry, pro se Inmate No. A693852 Belmont Correctional Institution P.O. Box 540 68518 Bannock Road Saint Clairsville, Ohio 43950 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 FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.: {¶1} On November 15, 2018, the relator, Ronald Curry, commenced this mandamus action against the respondents, the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court and Judge Joan Synenberg, to compel findings of fact and conclusions of law for a postconviction relief petition, which he filed on May 1, 2018, in the underlying case, State v. Curry, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-15-597049-A. On December 12, 2018, the respondents moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness and pleading defects. Attached to the dispositive motion was a copy of a certified journal entry file-stamped December 12, 2018, that contained the desired findings of fact and conclusions of law for the subject petition. Curry sought and this court granted an extension of time to file a brief in opposition until February 6, 2019. {¶2} Curry never filed a brief in opposition to the respondents’ dispositive motion. Instead, he appealed the denial of his postconviction relief petition. State v. Curry, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108088. Accordingly, this mandamus action is moot. The respondents fulfilled the duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, and Curry received his desired relief. {¶3} Relator also did not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), which requires that an inmate file a certified statement from his prison cashier setting forth the balance in his private account for each of the preceding six months. This also is sufficient reason to deny the mandamus, deny indigency status, and assess costs against the relator. State ex rel. Pamer v. Collier, 108 Ohio St.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-1507, 844 N.E.2d 842; State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 88 Ohio St.3d 176, 2000-Ohio-285, 724 N.E.2d 420; and Hazel v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 22, 2011-Ohio-4608, 955 N.E.2d 378 — the defect may not be cured by subsequent filings. {¶4} Accordingly, this court grants the respondents’ motion for summary judgment and denies the application for a writ of mandamus. Relator to pay costs. 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} Writ denied. FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and EILEEN T. 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.
