Spencer v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Spencer v. State, 2020-Ohio-235.] COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THOMAS J. SPENCER Relator JUDGES: Hon. John W. Wise, P. J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. -vsCase No. 2020 CA 00002 STATE OF OHIO, et al. Respondents OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2019 CR 00090 JUDGMENT: Dismissed DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 24, 2020 APPEARANCES: For Relator For Respondent THOMAS J. SPENCER PRO SE NOBLE CORR. INSTITUTION 15708 McConnelsville Road Caldwell, Ohio 43724 KYLE WITT PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 239 West Main Street Suite 101 Lancaster, Ohio 43130 Fairfield County, Case No. 2020 CA 00002 2 Wise, P. J. {¶1} This matter is before the Court upon Thomas J. Spencer’s Writ of Mandamus. Along with his writ, Mr. Spencer also filed the following documents: “Cover Sheet;” “Request for Leave of Trial Court to Admit as Ex Parte Communication This Document;” and two documents titled, “Complaint, and Request of Review, to Be Submitted on, Courts Committee on Complaints and Policy Compliance.” It appears Mr. Spencer’s Writ of Mandamus pertains to a criminal case that is currently pending in the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas under Case No. 2019 CR 00090. {¶2} Although numerous deficiencies exist with Mr. Spencer’s writ, the most glaring deficiencies that require sua sponte dismissal of his writ pertain to the caption. On the document titled “Writ of Mandamus,” he captioned himself, individually, as “Plaintiff” and the State of Ohio as “Defendant.” Mr. Spencer also included the Fairfield County Prosecutor, Kyle Witt, as a “Defendant.” R.C. 2731.04 requires an application for a writ of mandamus must be by petition, in the name of the state on the relation of the person applying. {¶3} Also, under Civ.R. 10(A) the caption of a complaint must “include the names and addresses of all the parties.” Mr. Spencer included no addresses for the parties identified in the caption of the documents and this failure alone also warrants sua sponte dismissal of the writ. See Hill v. Kelly, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2011-T-0094, 2011-Ohio6341, ¶ 8. {¶4} The Ohio Supreme Court held in Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen Cty., 173 Ohio St. 226, 227, 181 N.E.2d 270 (1962), the failure to properly caption a mandamus action is sufficient grounds for denying the writ and dismissing the petition. Fairfield County, Case No. 2020 CA 00002 3 Further, “[a] court may sua sponte dismiss a petition for an extraordinary writ when it is improperly captioned.” State v. Henton, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2014-A-0045, 2014Ohio-5311, ¶ 2, citing Snype v. Enlow, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2011-P-0096, 2012-Ohio1272, ¶ 4. {¶5} The Writ of Mandamus under consideration here is improperly captioned because it is not on relation of Mr. Spencer and lacks addresses for the parties identified in the caption. For these reasons, we sua sponte dismiss Mr. Spencer’s writ and his two Complaints. {¶6} WRIT AND COMPLAINTS DISMISSED. {¶7} COSTS TO RELATOR. {¶8} IT IS SO ORDERED. By: Wise, P. J. Delaney, J., and Baldwin, J., concur. JWW/d 0117 Fairfield County, Case No. 2020 CA 00002 4
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.
