Case Title: State ex rel. Kimbro v. Glavas

Citation: 2002-Ohio-5808

Docket Number: 20020552

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-11-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Kimbro v. Glavas, 97 Ohio St.3d 197, 2002-Ohio-5808.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. KIMBRO, APPELLANT, v. GLAVAS, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Kimbro v. Glavas, 97 Ohio St.3d 197, 2002-Ohio-5808.] 
Mandamus and procedendo sought to compel common pleas court judge to issue 
findings of fact and conclusions of law on the denial of relator’s motion 
to vacate his judgment of conviction — Court of appeals’ dismissal of 
complaint affirmed. 
(No. 2002-0552 — Submitted August 27, 2002 — Decided November 6, 2002.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No. 02CA008007. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In February 2002, appellant, Nathaniel Kimbro, an inmate at 
Marion Correctional Institution, filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for 
Lorain County for writs of mandamus and procedendo.  Kimbro requested the 
writs to compel appellee, Lorain County Common Pleas Court Judge Kosma J. 
Glavas, to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on the denial of his 
motion to vacate his judgment of conviction.  He attached an affidavit in which he 
stated, “In the last five (5) years, plaintiff has filed one civil petition in this 
Honorable Court under Kimbro v. Medders, Case No. 01CV128533, however, 
said action was dismissed for failure to prosecute an appeal.”  The court of 
appeals dismissed the complaint because Kimbro failed to comply with R.C. 
2969.25(A). 
{¶2} 
In his appeal as of right, Kimbro claims that the court of appeals 
erred because his complaint complied with R.C. 2969.25(A).  But a review of his 
complaint establishes that Kimbro did not attach the affidavit required by R.C. 
2969.25(A)(1), which specifies that the affidavit contain a “brief description of 
the nature of the civil action or appeal.”  Kimbro’s notation of one case failed to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
contain a sufficient description of the “nature of the civil action or appeal.”  
Kimbro specifies only that it was an appeal of a “civil petition.” 
{¶3} 
And Kimbro fails to assert that he has not filed any civil actions in 
the previous five years or that R.C. 2969.25(A) is otherwise inapplicable.  
Therefore, the court of appeals properly dismissed his complaint.  See State ex rel. 
Akbar-El v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 210, 
761 N.E.2d 624; State ex rel. White v. Mack (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 572, 573, 757 
N.E.2d 353. 
{¶4} 
Moreover, contrary to Kimbro’s contentions on appeal, sua sponte 
dismissal of his complaint without notice, while not generally permissible, was 
appropriate here because his complaint was obviously devoid of merit.  State ex 
rel. Peeples v. Anderson (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 559, 560, 653 N.E.2d 371. 
{¶5} 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Nathaniel Kimbro, pro se. 
__________________