State ex rel. Dehler v. Kelly
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Dehler v. Kelly, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-5259.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2009-OHIO-5259 THE STATE EX REL. DEHLER, APPELLANT, v. KELLY, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Dehler v. Kelly, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-5259.] Court of appeals judgment denying writ of mandamus affirmed Mandamus will not compel performance of an act that has already been performed Prisoner failed to prove a reasonable expectation that he would be subject to the same action again. (No. 2009-1121 Submitted September 30, 2009 Decided October 7, 2009.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County, No. 2008-T-0062, 2009-Ohio-2534. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of mandamus to compel a prison warden to provide properly fitting shoes to appellant, Lambert Dehler. Mandamus will not compel the performance of an act SUPREME COURT OF OHIO that has already been performed. State ex rel. Fontanella v. Kontos, 117 Ohio St.3d 514, 2008-Ohio-1431, 885 N.E.2d 220, ¶ 6. {¶ 2} The court of appeals correctly restricted its holding to Dehler himself because Dehler did not bring his mandamus case as a class action. See State ex rel. Ogan v. Teater (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 235, 247, 8 O.O.3d 217, 375 N.E.2d 1233 ( Where, as in the instant cause, the party bringing suit does not attempt to bring his cause of action within the provisions of Civ.R. 23, it is clear that the court may properly limit its holding to that of the party alone ). With that restriction, Dehler was unable to establish that his mandamus claim was not moot, i.e., he failed to prove a reasonable expectation that he would be subject to the same action again. See State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Heath, 121 Ohio St.3d 165, 2009-Ohio-590, 902 N.E.2d 976, ¶ 11. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O CONNOR, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. __________________ Lambert Dehler, pro se. Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Ashley Dawn Rutherford, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. _______________________ 2
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.
