State Ex Rel. Relator v. Daniels, Unpublished Decision (11-3-2005)
State Ex Rel. Relator v. Daniels, Unpublished Decision (11-3-2005)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} Initially, we find that Daniels' petition for a writ of mandamus is defective since it is improperly captioned. The complaint for an extraordinary writ must be brought by petition, in the name of the state on relation of the person applying. The failure of Daniels to properly caption his petition for a writ of mandamus constitutes sufficient reason for dismissal. Allen v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen Cty. (1962),
{¶ 3} Daniels has also failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C.
{¶ 4} Finally, this court provided Daniels with an opportunity to correct the aforesaid procedural defects. On July 19, 2005, the following order was issued and served upon Daniels:
SUA SPONTE, THE RELATOR IS GRANTED LEAVE TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ENTRY. THE RELATOR SHALL AMEND HIS COMPLAINT WITH REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING: (1) CAPTION OF THE COMPLAINT; (2) ADDRESS OF EACH PARTY CONTAINED IN THE COMPLAINT; (3) SWORN AFFIDAVIT, AS REQUIRED BY LOC.APP.R. 45(B)(1)(A), WHICH SPECIFIES THE DETAILS OF HIS CLAIM; AND (4) SWORN AFFIDAVIT, AS REQUIRED BY R.C.
{¶ 5} As of the date of this entry, Daniels has failed to correct any of the procedural defects contained in his complaint for a writ of mandamus.
{¶ 6} Accordingly, we grant Judge McGinty's motion for summary judgment. Daniels to pay costs. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of Appeals, pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B), serve notice of this judgment upon all parties.
Writ denied.
Sweeney, P.J., Concurs. Cooney, J., concurs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.