Case Title: State ex rel. Powe v. Lanzinger

Citation: 2019-Ohio-954

Docket Number: 2018-1121

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2019-03-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Powe v. Lanzinger, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-954.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2019-OHIO-954 
THE STATE EX REL. POWE, APPELLANT, v. LANZINGER, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Powe v. Lanzinger, Slip Opinion No.  
2019-Ohio-954.] 
Mandamus—Inmate failed to comply with filing requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C)—
Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed. 
(No. 2018-1121—Submitted January 29, 2019—Decided March 21, 2019.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 29080. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Orlando L. Powe, appeals the Ninth District Court of 
Appeals’ dismissal of his petition for a writ of mandamus against appellee, Summit 
County Common Pleas Court Judge Jill Lanzinger.  We affirm. 
{¶ 2} Powe was convicted of murder, felonious assault, and endangering 
children in 2002.  State v. Powe, 9th Dist. Summit No. 21026, 2002-Ohio-6034. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 3} On June 22, 2018, Powe filed a petition for a writ of mandamus 
against Judge Lanzinger.  He alleged that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over his 
criminal case because a criminal complaint was never filed against him.  He asked 
the court of appeals to issue a writ compelling Judge Lanzinger to “produce a 
properly filed criminal complaint” or else “dismiss the judgment/conviction against 
[him] under Crim.R. 48(B).” 
{¶ 4} On July 12, 2018, the court of appeals dismissed the mandamus 
petition sua sponte on the grounds that Powe failed to comply with the filing 
requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C).  Powe appealed. 
{¶ 5} An inmate who seeks a waiver of court filing fees when instituting a 
suit in the court of appeals against a government actor must provide (1) a statement 
setting forth the balance in the inmate’s account for each of the preceding six 
months and (2) a statement that sets forth all other cash and things of value owned 
by the inmate at the time of filing.  R.C. 2969.25(C).  Failure to comply with the 
requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C) is grounds for dismissal of the complaint.  State 
ex rel. Pamer v. Collier, 108 Ohio St.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-1507, 844 N.E.2d 842,  
¶ 5. 
{¶ 6} In this case, Powe attached to his petition a form captioned “Financial 
Disclosure/Affidavit of Indigency” that he claims to have received from the prison 
cashier at his request.  The document, which was notarized by an official at the 
prison, merely sets forth the facts that Powe works for the state in the institution 
and that he receives $20 a month in wages.  The form does not state the balance in 
Powe’s account for each of the preceding six months, nor does it identify cash or 
other things of value owned by Powe at the time of filing.  The court of appeals was 
therefore correct that the form does not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C). 
{¶ 7} Powe notes that the form was prepared by the cashier and argues that 
because Powe cannot control what information the form includes, he should not be 
punished if the form is noncompliant.  However, the requirements of R.C. 
January Term, 2019 
 
3
2969.25(C) do not allow for substantial compliance, State ex rel. Neil v. French, 
153 Ohio St.3d 271, 2018-Ohio-2692, 104 N.E.3d 764, ¶ 7, so the reason for Powe’s 
noncompliance is not relevant. 
{¶ 8} Alternatively, Powe suggests that he must have complied with the 
statutory requirements because otherwise, the clerk’s office would not have 
accepted his petition for filing.  However, the clerk’s office has no authority to 
enforce the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C).  The local rules of the Ninth 
Appellate District instruct the clerk to accept all pleadings for filing so long as the 
party submits an affidavit of inability to pay costs.  Loc.R. 2(D) of the Ninth District 
Court of Appeals. 
{¶ 9} The court of appeals correctly dismissed Powe’s petition. 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 
and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Orlando L. Powe, pro se. 
Sherri Bevan Walsh, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and Colleen 
Sims, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_________________