The Ohio Court of Appeals recently dismissed a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Michael Thompson against Judge Becky L. Doherty. This decision, made on September 8, 2026, affects Thompson, who is currently incarcerated, as he sought to compel the judge to resentence him following a previous ruling by the court.
The case, known as State ex rel. Thompson v. Doherty, was filed under docket number 2026-P-0032. Thompson argued that Judge Doherty failed to follow the court's earlier decision from February 9, 2026, which called for a resentencing. However, the court found that Thompson's petition did not meet necessary legal requirements, leading to its dismissal.
Michael Thompson is a pro se relator, meaning he represents himself without an attorney. He is currently incarcerated at the North Central Correctional Institution in Marion, Ohio. Judge Becky L. Doherty serves on the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, where Thompson's original sentencing occurred. The dispute arose after Thompson believed he was entitled to a resentencing based on a ruling from the appellate court.
The Ohio Court of Appeals received Thompson's petition for a writ of mandamus on April 27, 2026. In this petition, Thompson requested the court to order Judge Doherty to resentence him as per the earlier appellate decision. The court issued an alternative writ on May 29, 2026, allowing Judge Doherty to respond to the petition. In her response, she filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Thompson did not comply with the legal requirements necessary for his petition to proceed.
Judge Doherty's motion to dismiss highlighted that Thompson failed to attach the required affidavit, which is mandated by Ohio law. Specifically, R.C. 2969.25 requires inmates to file an affidavit detailing any previous civil actions they have taken in the last five years against government entities or employees. This affidavit must include the names of all parties involved in those actions. The court noted that Thompson's failure to provide this affidavit was a significant issue in his petition.
The court ruled, "Thompson did not file an affidavit as required, and such defect is fatal. Dismissal is therefore appropriate." This statement underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in legal filings, especially for individuals representing themselves.
In addition to the lack of the required affidavit, the court addressed the procedural nature of mandamus actions. It noted that for a writ of mandamus to be granted, the relator must demonstrate a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of the respondent, and the absence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The court found that Thompson did not meet these criteria, leading to the dismissal of his petition.
The court also mentioned that once the State of Ohio filed a notice of appeal regarding Thompson's case, the trial court lost jurisdiction to resentence him. This aspect further complicated Thompson's request for relief, as the court explained, "Once a case has been appealed, the trial court loses jurisdiction except to take action in aid of the appeal." This ruling indicates that Thompson's legal avenues are limited while the appeal is ongoing.
Thompson's case highlights the challenges faced by individuals navigating the legal system without professional representation. The court's ruling serves as a reminder of the strict compliance required for legal petitions, particularly for incarcerated individuals who may not be familiar with the intricacies of legal procedures.
The dismissal of Thompson's petition means that he will not receive the resentencing he sought from Judge Doherty. This ruling may set a precedent for similar cases in the future, emphasizing the importance of following procedural rules when filing legal actions. In the broader context, this case illustrates the complexities of the legal system and the potential difficulties faced by pro se litigants.
Looking ahead, Thompson may consider appealing the court's decision, although details regarding potential next steps were not available in the court filing. The ongoing appeal by the State of Ohio may also affect Thompson's situation, as the outcome of that appeal could influence future legal actions related to his case.