State ex rel. Burnes v. Athens Cty. Clerk of Courts - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

THE STATE EX REL. BURNES, APPELLANT, v. ATHENS COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS,
APPELLEE.
[Cite as State ex rel. Burnes v. Athens Cty. Clerk of Courts (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d
___.]
Mandamus to compel clerk of courts to docket and file relator's motion involving
a child-support obligation in a civil proceeding in the court of appeals --
Writ denied, when.
(Nos. 98-808 and 98-1130 -- Submitted September 15, 1998 -- Decided
November 10, 1998.)
APPEALS from the Court of Appeals for Athens County, No. 97 CA 38.

In May 1997, the Athens County Court of Common Pleas ordered appellant,
Ellyn J. Burnes, to transfer certain real estate to satisfy a child-support obligation
in a civil proceeding. Shortly thereafter, Burnes, noting her intention to appeal the
May 1997 order, attempted to have filed in the Court of Appeals for Athens
County a motion "for stay of visitation schedule in divorce decree and injunction
to prevent transfer of real estate pending appeal." According to Burnes, appellee,
Athens County Clerk of Courts, filed the motion in the common pleas court, rather
than in the court of appeals, because Burnes had not yet filed an appeal.

In May 1998, Burnes filed a complaint in the court of appeals for a writ of
mandamus to compel the clerk to properly docket and file her motion in the court
of appeals. The clerk filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary
judgment. The clerk attached to her motion an affidavit of a deputy clerk,
asserting that all documents submitted for filing by Burnes were properly docketed
and filed and that none of the documents had been refused by the clerk's office.
Burnes filed a brief in opposition to the clerk's motion but did not file any Civ.R.

56 evidence, i.e., depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions,
affidavits, etc., supporting her claim.

The court of appeals granted the clerk's motion for summary judgment and
denied the writ. The court of appeals subsequently denied Burnes's application
for reconsideration (case No. 98-808) and motion for appointment of counsel on
appeal (case No. 98-1130).

This cause is now before the court upon Burnes's appeals as of right.
__________________

Ellyn J. Burnes, pro se.
__________________

Per Curiam. Burnes asserts that the court of appeals erred in its various
rulings. For the reasons that follow, however, Burnes's contentions lack merit.

First, the court of appeals properly denied the writ. When a motion for
summary judgment is made and supported as provided in Civ.R. 56, the
nonmoving party may not rest on the mere allegations of her pleading, but her
response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Civ.R. 56, must set forth
specific facts showing the existence of a genuine triable issue. Mootispaw v.
Eckstein (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 383, 385, 667 N.E.2d 1197, 1199; Civ.R. 56(E).
The clerk supported her summary judgment motion with an affidavit, which
established that all of Burnes's documents were properly docketed and filed.
Burnes rested on the mere allegations of her complaint, and she failed to file
Civ.R. 56 evidence setting forth specific, material facts supporting her claimed
entitlement to extraordinary relief in mandamus.

Second, Burnes's request for reconsideration was a nullity because her
mandamus action was an original action filed in the court of appeals, thus
rendering App.R. 26(A) inapplicable. State ex rel. Clark v. Lile (1997), 80 Ohio

2

St.3d 220, 221, 685 N.E.2d 535, 536; State ex rel. Pajestka v. Faulhaber (1977),
50 Ohio St.2d 41, 42, 4 O.O.3d 113, 113-114, 362 N.E.2d 263, 263-264.

Finally, unlike criminal litigation, there is no general right of counsel in
civil litigation. See, generally, State ex rel. Jenkins v. Stern (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d
108, 110, 515 N.E.2d 928, 930-931. Burnes has also not specified any pertinent
statute or rule entitling her to appointed counsel in this appeal. See State ex rel.
Karmasu v. Tate (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 199, 206-207, 614 N.E.2d 827, 832; cf.
State ex rel. Asberry v. Payne (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 44, 693 N.E.2d 794.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.1
Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
FOOTNOTE:
1.
We deny Burnes's motion for "restraint and injunction" to prevent the clerk
from "invading [her] privacy." We lack jurisdiction to issue relief in the nature of
a prohibitory injunction. State ex rel. Lanham v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1997),
80 Ohio St.3d 425, 426, 687 N.E.2d 283, 284.

3