COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 71836 : : STATE OF OHIO EX REL. : PETITION FOR WRIT OF ABDUL SHARIF : MANDAMUS : Relator : : MOTION NO. 80239 -vs- : : CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR : JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION : Respondent : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MARCH 6, 1997 JUDGMENT: DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Relator: For Respondent: ABDUL SHARIF, Pro Se RANDI MARIE OSTRY, Assistant No. 212-173 County Prosecutor North Central Corr. Inst. Justice Center, Courts Tower P. O. Box 1812 1200 Ontario Street Marion, Ohio 43301 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- JAMES D. SWEENEY, C.J.: Abdul Sharif, relator, is seeking a writ of mandamus to verify grand jury minutes, to approve his indictment and to obtain the minutes of the grand jury hearing in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-238403 entitled State v. Sharif. The prosecutor has moved to dismiss the "petition" for failure to state a claim. For that reason and those that follow, we grant the motion to dismiss. An action in mandamus may only be instituted by petition or complaint in the name of the state on the relation of the person applying for the writ. R.C. 2731.04; Loc. App. R. 8. A mandamus action attempted to be brought by motion is subject to dismissal. Myles v. Wyatt (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 191, 580 N.E.2d 1080. Relator herein filed a "Motion for Writ of Mandamus" instead of the required petition or complaint. Relator's motion is hereby over- ruled as being an improper vehicle for stating a claim in mandamus. Id.; State v. Calloway (Feb. 27, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 71699, unreported. Notwithstanding relator's choice of the improper vehicle for seeking the writ of mandamus, relator's attempt at mandamus fails for other reasons as well. A petition or complaint for a writ of mandamus may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if the relator does not allege the existence of a clear legal duty of the respondent and does not allege the want of an adequate remedy at -3- law with sufficient particularity to put the respondent on notice of the substance of the claim being asserted. State ex rel. Boggs v. Springfield Local School Dist. Bd. of Educ. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 94, 647 N.E.2d 788. In this case relator first has not clearly defined who the respondent is. Relator's "Motion for Writ of Mandamus" is captioned "State of Ohio, respondent v. Abdul Sharif, relator," but relator provides no address for the "State of Ohio" for purposes of service. Relator never refers to the State of Ohio or any other person or entity in the body of his motion as the respondent. The only indication of a viable respondent is con- tained within the arguments of relator in his Memorandum in support of his Motion and in the Supplement attached to the Motion and Memorandum where relator references the prosecutor. This confusion over the identity of the respondent is also a ground for dismissal. State v. Calloway (Feb. 27, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 71699, unre- ported; State ex rel. Samuels v. Municipal Court (Nov. 22, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 67762, unreported. Assuming relator intended respondent to be the Cuyahoga County prosecutor, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, based upon relator's substantive arguments, relator also has failed to state a cognizable claim for relief in mandamus against her. A relator must allege with suffi- cient particularity what the legal duty is of the respondent to avoid dismissal. Legal duties arise by statute, Davis v. State ex rel. Pecsok (1936), 130 Ohio St. 411, 200 N.E. 181, paragraph one of the syllabus, so, at a minimum, relator in this case would be expected to state in a petition for a writ of mandamus which -4- statute under the circumstances requires the prosecutor to verify grand jury minutes, to approve his indictment, and to obtain and release minutes of the grand jury. A petition which fails to set forth a legal duty of respondent to perform the act requested fails to state a claim for relief in mandamus. State ex rel. Crawford v. State of Ohio (Mar. 7, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 66660, unreported; State ex rel. Graves v. Callahan (Nov. 29, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 66400, unreported. Relator herein has failed to allege any legal duty of the prosecutor now to verify grand jury minutes, to approve his indictment or to obtain and release minutes of the grand jury. In fact, this court has held on numerous occasions that mandamus is inappropriate under these circumstances to compel the requested relief. State ex rel. Smith v. Jones (Dec. 18, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 75176, unreported; State ex rel. Martin v. Jones (Sept. 10, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 71170, unreported; State ex rel. Pullum v. Jones (Oct. 12, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 69543, unre- ported; State ex rel. Dodson v. Jones (June 12, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 68867, unreported; State ex rel. Malave v. Jones (Oct. 27, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 66892, unreported; State ex rel. Street v. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor (Apr. 22, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 66939, unreported. These cited cases amply demonstrate that respondent prosecutor has no duty to perform the requested acts and that relator either has or had adequate remedies to obtain the requested relief in direct appeal, through postconviction relief, or by petition in the common pleas court requesting grand jury -5- transcripts. Mandamus, however, is not the appropriate avenue. Finally, relator has not filed the supporting affidavit detailing his claim which is required by Loc. App. R. 8(B)(1). This omission as well warrants dismissal. State ex rel. Key v. Court of Common Pleas (Jan 9, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 71680, unreported. Case dismissed. Relator to pay costs. PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J., CONCURS .