On Tuesday, July 8, 2025, Wayne A. Davis filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court of Ohio against Judge Daniel L. Brudzinski, requesting judicial action in a legal dispute.
The petition stems from a case filed by Davis on January 30, 2025, in which he submitted a writ of error, a memorandum, and a judgment entry under Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure 58. The Attorney General’s office responded in opposition to Davis’s judgment entry on February 12, 2025, and Davis replied on February 18, 2025.
In the petition, Davis argues that Judge Brudzinski, as the respondent, has a legal obligation to act on the issues raised in the January filing. Davis claims he has a clear legal right to the relief sought and that Brudzinski, as a judge, is duty-bound to provide it.
The filing cites Ohio Revised Code 2731.01, defining mandamus as a writ compelling a party to perform a legally obligated task. Davis further asserts that no adequate alternative remedy, such as an appeal or postconviction petition, is available to address his claims, referencing prior Ohio Supreme Court cases, including State ex rel. Olmstead v. Forsthoefel (2020) and State ex rel. Doe v. Gallia City Common Pleas Court (2018).
Davis’s petition requests that the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus directing Judge Brudzinski to take specific actions, including issuing a warrant for the arrest of defendants named in a related federal case.
The petition specifies that this action should occur only if the respondents appear in court within 30 days of the filing to address alleged legal harm and restore Davis’s original position. Additionally, Davis seeks any other relief to which he may be entitled, noting that the request for a warrant would be withdrawn if his restitution is satisfactorily resolved.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
