14`

OAv_1..FN L.WOLFERe1ator,

ROSS CORRECTIONAL TF':.: €.C"i''{£?Lik71a'3'4C3sI1t.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

9

Cas€: Fdo.2010...2141

MC1 T IGN TO STRIKE MOTION OF RESPONDENTS TO

u?'SMI:iS REL"r"t°('OR'u. COMPLAINT FOR WRIT OF

MANDAMUS PURSUANT TO '.`E1iPF:.C"a.Fit.-"E°'.R.14.20)(1)

AND RECONSIDER RELATDR'S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS

Jov:=2en L.iianose CorrectionalF'.G.Eirsr> 7010

i„'as.Ilic.u'th_=. , Oeics ra5fiL"

RS,C..n83:'+:i E:i.:!'L`d"+'c"fa (0=031.)

{.•'s71 C:3

Jason F'ulleb• (70E5104) iEsc,uz3sw'°1Assistant zttto:^r?ay Csrio.,

150 as'L =,yCului5t.as,Ohio 432

Respondents,vorrectaor:ai :C=,stituDepartment of i2etaabi.lita°taon

JAN 28 2011

SUP EMECCU^i®0^0H ►0

n Ucrreution

DaDI:^.°/JAN 2 8 2011

CLERK OF COURTSUPREME VOURT OF OHIO

un 3ancaary 25,2011 the Relator ueent to

notice ttsreG the Glerk of the Supreme Cnurt c^

and received 8

be a^^apV

opposition to the motion tn d3,stniva ts"cOaaSe §.t is auatime2ya The C3ar9c indicated

that For the docket that the MestiOn ta Dismiss was

and thus nny Op#sa$It:

no later tMen 3anuery 7,_

o the motion to diaonigs W89

bez 28, 20"! 0g

the Clesk w s Wiee

d

The ft2eftr i^ attaching (ox.1) to corafi.rm that the Assistant Attorney

ei did r4t mail the rolat

sch the Relator until asrauary 1202011.

to the Rela'ic9r ofimr" the date on wttien the

motion ^s duo. it i.s the responsibility of the Respondent to mail the Relator a

;p t#ismisSa anE'1 not 'C11O CC1U7C'k8,

pondezatle motion qn the 12th a

Relator prepared K and Erer'GifS.ie9 tho service for ^hc- 94th of

y in whieh the Cletk esf the Supreme Court filed receiving it an the 1^th

the Relator receiving

make the cion.

The Respondent's took 11td0 O k

Res

ex.l3 the Respondent U.

d to nxavide sOzVicS

Relator did

the Relatear e cOpy af

mai2 postage stamp verifies that

upon the Relator in dance with

S»Gt,3?rac.Pt,14.2(AD and did not provide the Relator the eappurtunity to rmaPrana.

According tr, Srapr>Ct,Prsn.R.4Gp2(AV1) it reads....nwhen a party or smicua

upon a per'iy ar Parties to the case in

4.2tA3 w any POrty adversely affected may file a

motion to strike the dacaamant that was taot nerumd«96

us:

tilherefaara, the Relator ask thie Crruri to strike the

dism#.st according to this rule and allow the Reletcar'n Writ of Mandamus to be

grani...=.d an rac;cie^ote,, o

G'°6?SIFI!^;°,`fr. OF S"c 4P74",F.

isreby cer'::L1°a dt,a° a copy of this sdid motion is being s::nt ePia regular

U.S. regular ena3.7. to the Ohio Attcjr°^w,?v

St, 95tPr E"1,, C+.,1.ur,Fbu.r^.-.,rhtcJ

R1it?..,"',i MFCP7 -"6a+

P,[l.RCIX 7010CH."LlyIC+'? H£. „7HICI 45601

Mike DeWineOhio Attorney Generral

150 E. GAY STREETCOLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

SECTION CODE:_ -#2"M

Javelen L. WolfeRoss Correctional InstitutionP. O. Box 701016149 State Rt. 104Chillicothe, Ohio 45601

LEGAL MAIL

FIRST CLASS

z

° hJw N

fJt .^ ^

C̀hie `` upxEnte (E.azxxt of (19hzIYOFFICE OF THE CLERK

65 SOUTH FRONT STREET, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-3431

CHIEF JUSTICE

MAUREEN O'CONNOR

JUSTICES

PAUL E. PFEIFER

EVELYN LUNDBERG STRATTON

TERRENCE O'DONNELL

IUDITH ANN LANZINGER

ROBERT R. CUFF

YVETTE MCGEE BROWN

January 20, 2011

Javelen Wolfe 287-364Ross Correctional InstitutionP.O. Box 7010Chillicothe, Ohio 45601

Re: Javelen Wolfe v. Ross Corr. Inst. and Ohio Dep't of Rehab. and Corr.Supreme Court of Ohio Case No. 2010-2141

Dear Mr. Wolfe:

CLERK OF THE COURT

KRISTINA D. FROST

TELEPHONE 614.387.9530

FACSIMILE 614.387.9539

www.supremecourt.ohio.gov

The enclosed opposition to the motion to dismiss was not filed because it is untimely.Rule 10.5(B) of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio provides that anopposition to a motion to dismiss must be filed within ten days after the filing of themotion. As the enclosed copy of the docket indicates, the motion to dismiss was filed onDecember 28, 2010. Thus, any opposition to the motion to dismiss was due in the Clerk's

Office no later than January 7, 2011.

The enclosed opposition to the motion to dismiss was not received until January 19,2011. Under Rule 14.1(D), the Clerk's Office must refuse to file documents that are nottimely. Accordingly, your opposition to the motion to dismiss was not filed and is being

returned.

Please note that under Rule 14.2(E), you must notify all parties served with a copy of the

enclosed documents that the documents were not filed.

NathanDeputy Clerk

Enclosi.ves

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

OAVELER9 L.4ilULFERelator,

vs,

Ross Carreetiarea7. Institution,st al,Respondent.

0,

Case N®.2010-2141

"GINA!

Relatar9s mctian ta disms.ss rosprsndents en®ts®n tn d°asmies Relator°s complair^t

for L^lri.t of Mandamus

Javelen WolfeRoss Cerr. InstoP.®.C'®X 7010Chillic®the,Ohi® 45601

Pro se,

Richard Cardray (0035034)Ohio Attorney General3ason Fulles (®®85184)(Cmunse1 of Record)

Assiptant Attorney General

150 East Gay St. 16th fl,Golumbus,l3hi® 43215

1

JAN 19 2011

CLERK OF COURTSUPREME COURT OF OHIO 0

MEt<1CIRANCIJM

The Respondent in his Motion of Respondents to Dismiss Relator's Complaint for

Writ of Mandamus rightfully acknowledged that the Relator's goal is to include

the proper paperwork in a clemency appli.caticn.

The Respondent poJ.nts out a"prolalem", however, the Respondent does not

acknowledge the real problem when explaining the case. The Respondent

states,",..Sut he never asked the clerk to prorJuce them." The Relator's wife

approached the clerk initially, h®wever, The Clerk of the Montgomery County

Courts expleined to my wife that the court "do not" have the Relator's Journal

Entry in the warehouse.

In the (2nd section of the Respondents motion) the Respondent failed to

acknowledge that the Relator fit the criteria for the lWandamus to be granted.

(1) a clear legal right,..,.attached to the Relator's motion is a letter from

the Judge Mike Flell informing the Relator to retrieve a copy of his 3ournal

Entry and Sentencing Information from R.C.I.,

The Respondents acknowledged that the Relator is seeking "clemency" from the

Governor of Ohio, and the Relator is in the custody of the Ross Corr.Inst.

And there existthe fact the Relator's Judge informed the Relator to retrieve it

from R.C.I.

(2) a clear legal duty on the part of the respondent,...The only two places

where the Relator is to retrieve his Journal Entry and Sentencing Information is

from the Montgomery County Court system, and the Ross Cor.rectional Institution,

and it is The Ohio Department Clf Corrections entity that is requesting such

documents.

(3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary oourse of law...The fact

that BOTH possessors of the Relator's 3ournal Entry and Sentencing Information

is denying the Relator access to these documents, thus prohibiting the Relator

from seeking relief from the Governor of Ohio.

The +'only" avenues the Relator has, denied the Relator access to his documents,

so, the Relator ask this Honorable Court to order both entities to release

either the Journal Entry and Sentencing Information to file a"clemency" or

release the Relator. The Relator believes he has met all three criteria to file

and be granted his Writ of Mandamus.

The Relator is not asking far documents that is not already in the Relator's

"Master File", but was also requested from the Montgomery County Common P1eas

Judge Mike Hall, Mr. Wolfe has been misdirected several times and the Relator

will expl'ain to the Supreme Court,how.

1. Judge Mike Hall stated for the Relator to retrieve the Journal Entry and

Sentencing Information from R.C,I (see ex: a of this motion.)

2;Rttorney for Mike Hall Ms.Cerley J.Ingram on page 3 of her motion cited R.C.

149.42 with supporting cases that it is the Trial Court who has the authority to

give the Relator his requested documents.(see ex.b of this motion.)

3: The Respondents at hand is stating that it is the responsibility of the Clerk

of Court to supply the Relator with the requested documents.(motion of the

Respondents.)

Simply put, there is no one accepting,responsibility in this regard and asking

The Supreme Court of Ohio to not order relief in this instance. The Relator is

being caught up not in the quality of justice but in the quality of injustice in

which the Relator believes that he is entitled to his Journal Entry and

Sentencing Information for purposes of filing a clemency with the Gavernor and

to prohibit the Relator from doing so violates his Right to Due Process.

CONCLUSION

The Relator ask this Court to grant the Relator's Writ of Mandamus. /

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE^

hcrat7y certify that v caay of t};is =nota.on is being aent byU .S. regular

mail to the Ass;-^341-W;nt A"=tur:,Ey t:Eneral. e'I; 150 East G'ay utraet, 16th tl.

s. n t1-a.; /Vj'y c.°rv arsaary, 6711.

MICHAEL T. HALL

JODGE

MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURTS BUILDING

GENERAL D[VISION

41 NORTH PERRY STREET CR # 5

P.O. Box 972

DAYTON, OHIO 45422-2 1 50

November 09, 2010

Javalen L. Wolfe, 287-364Ross Correctional InstitutionP.O. Box 7010Chillicothe, OH 45601

RE: Case Number 1993 CR 00556

Dear Mr. Wolfe:

(937) 496-7951

FAx(937)225-5406E-MAIL: hatlmCamontcourt.org

I received a copy of your Motion to produce Journal Entry and Sentencing Information which Idenied by Entry and Order (see enclosed). You may be able to secure a copy of your Journal Entry andSentencing Information from your file at Ross Correctional Institution.

Enclosed for your consideration is a copy of the Decision/Opinion from the Court of Appeals ofOhio, Second Appellate District, Montgomery County in reference to your case.

Yours truly,

Judge Michael T. Hall

MTH/I Id

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Enclosures

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Javelen L. WolfeInmate No. 287-364P.O. Box 7010Chillicothe, OH 45601

Case No. 10-2142

Relator,

vs.

The Honorable Judge Michael T. Hall,Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas,

41 North Perry StreetDayton, OH 45422

Respondent.

MOTION TO DISMISS OF RESPONDENT,JUDGE MICHAEL T. HALL.

MATHIAS H. HECK, JR.PROSECUTING ATTORNEYBy CARLEY J. INGRAM

REG. NO. 0020084Assistaut Prosectiting Attorney

Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office

Appellate DivisionDayton-Montgomery County Courts Building

P.O. Box 972, 301 W. Third Street, 5th Floor

Dayton, Ohio 45422(937) 225-4117

JAVELEN L. WOLFE, PRO SE#287-364P. O. Box 7010Chillicothe, OH 45601

JAVELEN L. WOLFE, PRO SERELATOR

ATTORNEY FORJUDGE MICHAEL T. HALL,

RESPONDENT

3

made by a petition that is brought in the name of the state and on relation of the person applying.

Wolfe's mis-captioning of his action is grounds for denying the writ and dismissing the petition.

Martin v. Woods,121 Ohio St.3d 609, 2009-Ohio-1928, 906 N.E.2d 1113.

C. Wolfe has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.Wolfe, who is

an inmate at the Ross Correctional Institution, complains that the trial court denied his request

for copies of documents filed in the murder case that sent him to prison, and he asks this Court to

issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent do so. However, under R.C. 149.43(B)(8), a

public officer or person responsible for public records is not required to permit an inmate to

inspect or obtain a copy of any public record concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution

unless the request to inspect or,obtain a copy of the records is to acquire information that is

subject to release as a public record under R.C. 149.42, and the judge who imposed the sentence

(or that judge's successor in office) finds that the information sought is necessary to support

what appears to be a justiciable claim of the person.State ex rel. Russell v. Bican, 112 Ohio

St.3d 559, 2007-Ohio-813, 862 N.E.2d 102;State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d

409, 2006-Ohio-5858, 856 N.E.2d 966; State ex rel. Sevayega v. Reis, 88 Ohio St.3d 458, 459,

2000-Ohio-383, 727 N.E.2d 910. Wolfe has not complied with R.C. 149.43(B)(8), and so he

has no right to inspect or obtain a copy of the records.

As a result, while it is true tlxat mandanius is the appropriate remedy to compel

compliance with 149.43(B)(1), Wolfe has no right to the writ because he has not obtained the

necessary decision from the trial court.