On Tuesday, September 30, 2025, Ramon Boyce filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo in the Supreme Court of Ohio against Clark County Common Pleas Court Judge Douglas M. Rastatter. Boyce, an inmate, alleges that Judge Rastatter has failed to rule on his post-conviction petition for over four years.

According to the filing, Boyce was indicted by the Clark County Grand Jury. Judge Rastatter was assigned to preside over the case, which proceeded to a jury trial, resulting in Boyce’s conviction and a 70-year sentence. Boyce asserts that the case remains assigned to Judge Rastatter and has not been transferred or reassigned to another judge.

Boyce contends that Judge Rastatter has a legal obligation to rule on all motions, applications, or petitions. He further states that he filed a post-conviction petition on October 19, 2020, with the Clark County Clerk of Courts Office, seeking to have his conviction set aside based on alleged constitutional errors. Boyce argues that the petition was properly filed under Ohio Revised Code §§ 2953.21 and 2953.23 and has been pending for more than four years.

In his petition, Boyce raises seven claims, primarily alleging Brady violations. He claims the state suppressed material exculpatory evidence. One claim involves Columbus police dispatch run-logs allegedly withheld during Boyce’s Clark County trial in 2018. Boyce asserts these logs would have demonstrated he was not involved in a burglary at 150 West Royal Forest Boulevard, contradicting officer testimony.

Additional claims include ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to raise suppression issues related to searches conducted without warrants, the withholding of DNA evidence, the court thwarting Boyce’s ability to call witnesses, preventing Boyce’s sister from testifying, the state using a sham legal process to indict Boyce, and the trial court violating Boyce’s right to trial by not allowing him to place objections on the record concerning jury instructions or verdict forms.

Boyce argues that he lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law due to Judge Rastatter’s failure to rule on his pending petition. He requests the Supreme Court to direct Judge Rastatter to provide an immediate response and acknowledge the delay in proceeding to judgment.

Boyce seeks an order compelling Judge Rastatter to respond without further delay and requests any other relief the court deems fair and just.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.