Full Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Sampson v. Falkowski, 2026-Ohio-4335.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO ex rel. CASE NO. 2026-L-0097 RAYMOND EDWARD VINCENT SAMPSON, Original Action for Writ of Procedendo Relator, - vs - THE HONORABLE COLLEEN A. FALKOWSKI, JUDGE, LAKE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION, Respondent. PER CURIAM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Decided: November 2, 2026 Judgment: Petition dismissed Raymond Edward Vincent Sampson, pro se, 300 East Walnut Avenue, Painesville, OH 44077 (Relator). Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Eric J. Foisel, Assistant Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Respondent). PER CURIAM. {¶1} Relator, Raymond Edward Vincent Sampson, is the defendant in divorce and custody proceedings in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 20 DR 000236. Respondent, The Honorable Colleen A. Falkowski, Judge, Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is presiding over that case. {¶2} On September 23, 2025, Relator filed a motion in the Domestic Court seeking a determination or restoration of parental rights and parenting time. {¶3} On August 25, 2026, Relator filed a Petition for Writ of Procedendo seeking an order compelling Respondent to set any evidentiary hearing necessary and proceed promptly to a written, journalized decision on his September 23, 2025 motion pending before Respondent. {¶4} On September 2, 2026, we issued an Alternative Writ. {¶5} On September 18, 2026, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss. Relator responded in opposition. {¶6} Relator’s Petition alleges that on September 23, 2025, he filed a motion seeking a determination or restoration of parental rights and parenting time in the underlying Domestic Relations case Respondent presides over. {¶7} Respondent took action relating to that motion, including directing the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) to conduct interviews with the children. However, Respondent had not yet scheduled a final hearing on Relator’s motion. Relator alleged that he had filed two written motions requesting that Respondent set a final evidentiary hearing and proceed to a determination. {¶8} In her Motion to Dismiss, Respondent argues that Relator’s Petition is now moot because, since the filing of the Petition, Respondent has set a motion hearing for November 9, 2026, to consider Relator’s pending motion seeking a determination or restoration of parental rights. PAGE 2 OF 5 Case No. 2026-L-0097 {¶9} “As a general matter, procedendo . . . will lie when a trial court has refused to render, or unduly delayed rendering, a judgment.” State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger, 2003-Ohio-3631, ¶ 5. “A writ of procedendo will not issue unless the relator establishes a clear legal right to that relief and that there is no adequate remedy at law.” State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 1995-Ohio-26, ¶ 4. {¶10} “[N]either procedendo nor mandamus will generally issue to compel a court to release its decisions promptly.” State ex rel. Nalls v. Russo, 2002-Ohio-4907, ¶ 31. A court may deny a writ of procedendo where the delay is relatively minimal. See id. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that two to three weeks between filing a motion and a relator filing a petition for procedendo is only a minimal delay. Berthelot v. Dezso, 1999- Ohio-100, ¶ 10; State ex rel. Sherrills, 1995-Ohio-26, at ¶ 6. {¶11} “A writ of procedendo will not issue to compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.” State ex rel. Bortoli v. Dinkelacker, 2005-Ohio-779, ¶ 3. When a court acts on a pending motion, the petition for procedendo seeking to compel such action becomes moot. See State ex rel. Rohrer v. Holzapfel, 2016-Ohio-7827, ¶ 11. {¶12} In this case, the Petition seeks to compel Respondent to set an evidentiary hearing on Relator’s pending motion and to promptly rule. The trial court has set a hearing for November 9, 2026. Therefore, Respondent has taken the action that Relator seeks to compel. This renders Relator’s Petition moot. Although the trial court has not yet ruled on the motion, the hearing has not yet been held. Therefore, we cannot yet compel the trial court to rule on Relator’s motion. PAGE 3 OF 5 Case No. 2026-L-0097 {¶13} Accordingly, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is granted, and Relator’s Petition for Writ of Procedendo is dismissed. MATT LYNCH, P.J., JOHN J. EKLUND, J., SCOTT LYNCH, J., concur. PAGE 4 OF 5 Case No. 2026-L-0097 JUDGMENT ENTRY For the reasons stated in the Per Curiam Opinion of this court, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is granted, and Relator’s Petition for Writ of Prohibition is dismissed. Costs are taxed against Relator. Any other pending motions are hereby overruled as moot. PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH, concurs JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND, concurs JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH, concurs THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. PAGE 5 OF 5 Case No. 2026-L-0097