Background
Bryan Kidd, acting pro se, sought a writ of mandamus directing Judge William F.B. Vodrey to rule on Kidd’s July 2025 motion for jail-time credit in five Cuyahoga County criminal cases and to award 179 days of credit. Kidd had pleaded guilty in December 2023 and received an aggregate six-year prison sentence. His sentencing entries did not award jail-time credit.
Kidd had previously sought jail-time credit while represented by counsel, and the state had indicated it did not oppose a lesser amount. His later pro se motion and a related motion remained pending. In June 2026, the state said it did not oppose 194 days of jail-time credit. Judge Vodrey moved to dismiss the mandamus complaint.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the complaint. The underlying criminal cases were assigned to Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, who was succeeded by Judge Joy Kennedy; Judge Vodrey was never assigned to them. Because Judge Vodrey had no clear legal duty to rule on motions in cases not assigned to him, Kidd could not state a mandamus claim against that respondent.
The court also held that Kidd failed to strictly comply with R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). His indigency affidavit lacked the institutional cashier’s certification of his inmate-account balance for the six months preceding the filing. The complaint additionally failed to use the statutorily required mandamus caption and omitted party mailing addresses required for service. Although the court expected a prompt ruling on the pending jail-time-credit motion, it explained that Kidd could refile a procedurally proper action against the proper respondent if necessary.
Key Takeaways
- Mandamus cannot compel a judge to act in a criminal case that was never assigned to that judge.
- An incarcerated litigant seeking a filing-fee waiver must strictly comply with R.C. 2969.25(C)(1), including obtaining the cashier certification.
- Mandamus may compel a court to rule, but cannot dictate that it award a particular amount of jail-time credit.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that mandamus relief depends on naming an official with a clear legal duty to perform the requested act. It also illustrates the strict procedural requirements imposed on inmate civil actions, even where a substantive motion has been pending for an extended period.