COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
 
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
 
                           No. 85990
 
 
DENVER BARRY                 :         ORIGINAL ACTION
                             :
                             :         JOURNAL ENTRY
          Relator            :              AND
                             :            OPINION
    vs.                      :
                             :
JUDGE JUNE R. GALVIN         :
                             :
          Respondent         :
 
 
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:           MAY 9, 2005
 
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:         WRIT OF PROCEDENDO
 
JUDGMENT:                         Writ Denied.
                                  Motion No. 369780
 
 
 
APPEARANCES:
 
For Relator:                      CARL C. MONASTRA
                                  75 Public Square
                                  Suite 1000
                                  Cleveland, Ohio 44113-2001
 
 
For Respondent:                   WILLIAM D. MASON
                                  Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                                  BY: MARY H. MCGRATH
                                  Assistant County Prosecutor
                                  Justice Center - 9th Floor
                                  1200 Ontario Street
                                  Cleveland, Ohio 44113
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -2-
 
Judge James J. Sweeney:
 
     On February 16, 2005, relator Denver Barry, through counsel,
 
commenced this procedendo action against the respondent, Judge June
 
R. Galvin, to compel her to rule on various motions filed in Barry
 
v. Rolfe, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Court
 
Division, Case No. 00-702171. On March 16, 2005, the respondent,
 
through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, filed a motion to dismiss.
 
For the following reasons, we grant the motion to dismiss.
 
     Initially, we note that Barry's petition for a writ of
 
procedendo should be denied because it is improperly captioned.
 
The application for a writ "must be by petition, in the name of the
 
state on the relation of the person applying. " The failure to
 
caption an original action properly constitutes sufficient grounds
 
for dismissing the petition.    Allen v. Court of Common Pleas of
 
Allen Cty. (1962), 173 Ohio St. 226, 181 N.E.2d 270;    Dunning v.
 
Judge Cleary (Jan. 11, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 78763.
 
     Additionally,   Barry  failed   to  comply   with   Loc.App.R.
 
45(B)(1)(a) which, requires that complaints in original actions be
 
supported by an affidavit specifying the details of the claim. In
 
his application, Barry merely avers that the statements and
 
allegations set forth in the complaint are true and accurate to the
 
best of his knowledge and belief.   "This conclusory statement is
 
not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a)
 
that the affidavit supporting the complaint specify the details of
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -3-
 
the claim. `The absence of facts specifying the details of the
 
claim  required  by   Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) is a ground for
 
dismissal.' State ex rel. Sansom v. Wilkinson, Cuyahoga App. No.
 
80743, 2002-Ohio-1385, at ¶7." State v. Sawyer, Cuyahoga App. No.
 
83682, 2004-Ohio-516, at ¶6.
 
     Notwithstanding the above, procedendo is appropriate when a
 
court has either refused to render judgment or has unnecessarily
 
delayed proceeding to judgment.   State ex rel. Watkins v. Eighth
 
District Court of Appeals, 82 Ohio St.3d 532, 1998-Ohio-190, 696
 
N.E.2d 1079. Moreover, procedendo is an extraordinary remedy which
 
is to be exercised with caution and only when the right is clear.
 
It should not be used in doubtful cases.     Chokel v. Celebrezze
 
(Dec. 19, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 78355.
 
     After reviewing the petition, we find that Barry failed to
 
demonstrate to this court that Judge Galvin has refused or has
 
unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment. We agree with the
 
prosecutor's claim that Barry is not alleging that Judge Galvin is
 
refusing to rule on the subject motions. Rather, Barry is claiming
 
that Judge Galvin has unnecessarily delayed her rulings. However,
 
Barry's complaint does not identify with any particularity when
 
these motions were filed nor how long they have been pending.
 
Accordingly, this court is precluded from making any finding that
 
Judge Galvin has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment.
 
     Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss the complaint
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                               -4-
 
seeking a procedendo. Relator to bear costs. It is further
 
ordered that the clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this
 
judgment and date of entry pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B).
 
    Writ denied.
 
 
 
                                        JAMES J. SWEENEY
                                             JUDGE
 
ANN DYKE, P.J., CONCURS
 
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., CONCURS
 
.