Background
Relator Haneef Muhammad filed an original action seeking a writ of procedendo to compel Respondent Judge Jessica D’Varga to rule on his November 14, 2025 motion to vacate or withdraw plea, or in the alternative, schedule a hearing on that motion in Franklin M.C. case No. 2007 CRB 014212. Muhammad argued that he was entitled to the writ because more than 30 days had elapsed since the filing of his motion to vacate.
Judge D’Varga filed a motion to dismiss Muhammad’s procedendo petition pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). She contended that Muhammad failed to state a claim because she had not refused or unduly delayed ruling on the motion, and that the matter was moot because she had already scheduled a hearing on Muhammad’s motion to vacate. A magistrate of the Tenth District Court of Appeals issued a decision recommending that the court grant Judge D’Varga’s motion to dismiss.
The Court’s Holding
The Ohio Court of Appeals, Tenth District, approved the magistrate’s decision, denying Muhammad’s writ of procedendo as moot and the motion to dismiss as moot. The court reiterated that a writ of procedendo will not issue to compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.
In this case, the court found that Judge D’Varga had already taken the necessary steps to proceed to judgment. Specifically, she had set and held a hearing on February 27, 2026, and ruled on the pending motion on June 3, 2026. Because Judge D’Varga had performed the requested action, the court concluded that a writ of procedendo could not issue.
The court modified the magistrate’s decision to incorporate the finding that the writ of procedendo was denied as moot because Judge D’Varga had, since the magistrate’s decision was issued, ruled on the motion in a decision filed on June 3, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- A writ of procedendo is an extraordinary remedy granted when a lower court refuses or unduly delays rendering a judgment.
- Such a writ will not be issued if the judicial action it seeks to compel has already been performed by the lower court.
- Scheduling a hearing on a pending motion, or ultimately ruling on it, can render a petition for a writ of procedendo moot.
- Ohio’s Sup.R. 40(A)(3) provides that motions should be ruled upon within 120 days; filing a procedendo action before this period elapses may be considered premature if the court is actively proceeding.
Why It Matters
This decision underscores the high bar for obtaining extraordinary writs like procedendo. It clarifies that such writs are remedies for actual judicial inaction or refusal, not for expediting matters where a court is already taking steps to resolve a pending motion, such as scheduling a hearing or issuing a ruling.
For attorneys, the case serves as a reminder to ensure that the underlying judicial duty has indeed been neglected or refused before pursuing a writ of procedendo, as any subsequent action by the lower court can render the petition moot and preclude relief.