STATE SEVAYEGA v. McMONAGLE (2009)

Supreme Court of Ohio.

The STATE ex rel. SEVAYEGA, Appellant, v. McMONAGLE, Judge, Appellee.

No. 2009-0106.

Decided: May 28, 2009

Reginald D. Sevayega, pro se. William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Pamela Bolton, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. D. Jim Brady, amicus curiae.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the complaint of appellant, Reginald D. Sevayega, for a writ of procedendo. A writ of procedendo will not issue to compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed. State ex rel. Howard v. Skow, 102 Ohio St.3d 423, 2004-Ohio-3652, 811 N.E.2d 1128, ¶ 9. Moreover, insofar as Sevayega contests the propriety of the ruling he received on his postconviction motion, he had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by way of appeal. Extraordinary relief in procedendo will not be granted if there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. George v. Burnside, 118 Ohio St.3d 406, 2008-Ohio-2702, 889 N.E.2d 533, ¶ 7.

Judgment affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'CONNOR, O'DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network