State ex rel. Oliphant v. English
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Oliphant v. English, 2019-Ohio-1179.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY State ex rel. Jasin Oliphant Court of Appeals No. L-19-1017 Relator v. The Honorable Judge, Ian B. English Respondent DECISION AND JUDGMENT Decided: March 25, 2019 ***** Jasin Oliphant, pro se. Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, John A. Borell and Elaine B. Szuch, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee. ***** PIETRYKOWSKI, J. {¶ 1} This matter is before the court on respondent’s, Hon. Ian B. English, motion to dismiss relator’s, Jasin Oliphant, petition for a writ of procedendo. For the reasons that follow, we find respondent’s motion well-taken. {¶ 2} On February 5, 2019, relator filed his petition for a writ of procedendo to compel respondent to rule on relator’s July 17, 2018 “Motion for Resentencing Based upon a Void Judgment” and August 14, 2018 “Motion for Clearance” in case No. CR-2012-2836. {¶ 3} On February 27, 2019, we issued an alternative writ, and ordered respondent within 14 days to either do the act requested, or show cause why he is not required to do so by filing an answer or a motion to dismiss. On February 28, 2019, respondent filed his motion to dismiss. Relator has not filed a response. {¶ 4} In his motion to dismiss, respondent states that he has now ruled on relator’s outstanding motions, and has attached a copy of the February 22, 2019 judgment entry denying relator’s “Motion for Resentencing Based upon a Void Judgment” and “Motion for Clearance.” As such, respondent argues that relator’s petition for a writ of procedendo must be dismissed as moot. We agree. {¶ 5} “Neither procedendo nor mandamus will compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.” State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel, 84 Ohio St.3d 252, 253, 703 N.E.2d 304 (1998). Further, the performance of the requested acts renders a claim for procedendo moot. State ex rel. Howard v. Skow, 102 Ohio St.3d 423, 2004-Ohio3652, 811 N.E.2d 1128, ¶ 9. {¶ 6} Accordingly, upon due consideration, we hereby dismiss relator’s petition for a writ of procedendo as moot. Costs are assessed to relator. 2. {¶ 7} To the clerk: Manner of Service {¶ 8} The clerk is directed to serve upon all parties, within three days, a copy of this decision in a manner prescribed by Civ.R. 5(B). Writ denied. Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________ JUDGE Arlene Singer, J. Christine E. Mayle, P.J. CONCUR. _______________________________ JUDGE _______________________________ JUDGE This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/. 3.
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.
