Case Title: State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene

Citation: 2018-Ohio-4200

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2018-10-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-4200.] 
 
 
 
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. 2018-OHIO-4200 
THE STATE EX REL. MCDOUGALD v. GREENE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene,  
Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-4200.] 
Mandamus—R.C. 2969.25—Inapplicable to original actions filed in Supreme 
Court—Motion to dismiss denied—Alternative writ granted. 
(No. 2018-0013—Submitted April 10, 2018—Decided October 18, 2018.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator, Jerone McDougald, filed this original action in mandamus 
against respondent, Larry Greene, an employee of the Southern Ohio Correctional 
Facility.  Greene subsequently filed a motion to dismiss.  For the reasons set forth 
below, we deny Greene’s motion to dismiss and issue an alternative writ.  In 
addition, because the Rules of Civil Procedure permitted McDougald to file an 
amended complaint without leave of court, we deny McDougald’s motion for leave 
to amend his complaint. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Background 
{¶ 2} McDougald is an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility.  
He alleges that on August 31, 2017, he submitted a public-records request to 
Greene, the public-records custodian for the facility.  Despite numerous follow-up 
communications, McDougald asserts that he has never received the documents that 
he had requested.  He therefore filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus asking us 
to compel Greene to provide McDougald the requested documents and to award 
McDougald statutory damages. 
{¶ 3} Greene has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint based on 
McDougald’s failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25’s filing requirements.  
McDougald has not responded to Greene’s motion to dismiss. 
Analysis 
{¶ 4} The Ohio Revised Code imposes special procedural requirements 
upon inmates who file civil actions against the government or its employees.  R.C. 
2969.25(A) states: 
 
At the time that an inmate commences a civil action or 
appeal against a government entity or employee, the inmate shall 
file with the court an affidavit that contains a description of each 
civil action or appeal of a civil action that the inmate has filed in the 
previous five years in any state or federal court.  The affidavit shall 
include all of the following for each of those civil actions or appeals: 
(1) A brief description of the nature of the civil action or 
appeal; 
(2) The case name, case number, and the court in which the 
civil action or appeal was bought; 
(3) The name of each party to the civil action or appeal; 
(4) The outcome of the civil action or appeal * * *. 
January Term, 2018 
3 
 
 
{¶ 5} In addition, if the inmate filing a civil suit seeks a waiver of 
prepayment of the filing fee, then the inmate must include with the complaint two 
affidavits: an affidavit of waiver and an affidavit of indigency.  R.C. 2969.25(C).  
The affidavits must include (1) a statement that is certified by the institutional 
cashier and that sets forth the balance in the inmate’s account for each of the 
preceding six months and (2) a statement of all other cash and things of value owned 
by the inmate at the time of filing.  R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) and (2). 
{¶ 6} “ ‘ “The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to 
comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.” ’ ”  State ex rel. Perotti 
v. Clipper, 151 Ohio St.3d 132, 2017-Ohio-8134, 86 N.E.3d 331, ¶ 3, quoting State 
ex rel. McGrath v. McDonnell, 126 Ohio St.3d 511, 2010-Ohio-4726, 935 N.E.2d 
830, ¶ 1, quoting State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 
788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5.  We have consistently affirmed the judgments of courts of 
appeals dismissing inmates’ civil suits against the government when the complaints 
or petitions have not included a complete affidavit of prior actions.  See, e.g., State 
ex rel. Sands v. Bunting, 150 Ohio St.3d 325, 2017-Ohio-5697, 81 N.E.3d 459, ¶ 3; 
Robinson v. LaRose, 147 Ohio St.3d 473, 2016-Ohio-7647, 67 N.E.3d 765, ¶ 11.  
Likewise, we have affirmed judgments dismissing inmates’ civil-suit complaints or 
petitions when an inmate has sought a waiver of the filing fees but has failed to 
supply the necessary affidavits.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Davenport v. State, 146 Ohio 
St.3d 255, 2016-Ohio-3414, 54 N.E.3d 1248, ¶ 1-3; State ex rel. Ridenour v. 
Brunsman, 117 Ohio St.3d 260, 2008-Ohio-854, 883 N.E.2d 438, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 7} In his motion to dismiss, Greene correctly notes that McDougald is 
an inmate who has filed a civil action against a state employee and that McDougald 
did not attach an affidavit of prior civil actions to his complaint.  Nevertheless, 
Greene is not entitled to have the complaint dismissed. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 8} The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 apply only to “a civil action or 
appeal against a government entity or employee.”  That phrase is defined in R.C.  
2969.21(B) as follows: 
 
 (1) “Civil action or appeal against a government entity or 
employee” means any of the following: 
(a) A civil action that an inmate commences against the state, 
a political subdivision, or an employee of the state or a political 
subdivision in a court of common pleas, court of appeals, county 
court, or municipal court; 
(b) An appeal of the judgment or order in a civil action of 
the type described in division (B)(1)(a) of this section that an inmate 
files in a court of appeals. 
 
(Emphasis added.)  Thus, the definition of a “civil action” in which an inmate must 
include the information required by R.C. 2969.25 does not include an original 
action filed in this court.  And just to make the point more explicit, R.C. 
2969.21(B)(2) provides: 
 
“Civil action or appeal against a government entity or 
employee” does not include any civil action that an inmate 
commences against the state, a political subdivision, or an employee 
of the state or a political subdivision in the court of claims or the 
supreme court or an appeal of the judgment or order entered by the 
court of claims in a civil action of that nature, that an inmate files in 
a court of appeals or the supreme court. 
 
(Emphasis added.)   
January Term, 2018 
5 
 
{¶ 9} Original actions filed in this court are governed by the Supreme 
Court Rules of Practice.  Those rules impose no special filing requirements on 
inmates, with one exception: petitions for writs of habeas corpus must “be brought 
and proceed in accordance with R.C. Chapter 2725.”  S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.01(B).  By 
operation of that rule, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in this court is 
subject to R.C. 2725.04(D), which requires a habeas corpus petitioner to attach “[a] 
copy of the commitment or cause of detention * * * if it can be procured without 
impairing the efficiency of the remedy.”  But McDougald did not file a petition for 
a writ of habeas corpus.  He filed an original action in mandamus in this court. 
{¶ 10} The motion to dismiss is premised entirely upon McDougald’s 
noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25.  Because that statute does not apply, we deny 
the motion and grant an alternative writ. 
{¶ 11} Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05, we set the following schedule for the 
presentation of evidence and the filing of briefs: The parties are ordered to file any 
evidence that they intend to present within 20 days of the date of this decision, 
McDougald is ordered to file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, 
Greene is ordered to file a brief within 20 days after the filing of McDougald’s 
brief, and McDougald may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of 
Greene’s brief. 
{¶ 12} We also deny McDougald’s motion for leave to amend his 
complaint to add factual averments.  Leave of court is not required. 
 
A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course 
within twenty-eight days after serving it or, if the pleading is one to 
which a responsive pleading is required within twenty-eight days 
after service of a responsive pleading or twenty-eight days after 
service of a motion under Civ.R. 12(B), * * * whichever is earlier. 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Civ.R. 15(A), see S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.01(A)(2)(b) (in original actions filed in this court, 
the Rules of Civil Procedure apply unless they are clearly inapplicable or they 
conflict with this court’s Rules of Practice).  The court’s docket shows that the 
complaint was served upon Greene by certified mail on January 4, 2018.  The 
motion for leave to amend was filed on January 26, well within the 28-day period 
allowed under the rules.  See, e.g., Michelson v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, 
2018-Ohio-1303, 99 N.E.3d 475, ¶ 32 (8th Dist.). 
Motions denied 
and alternative writ granted. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, 
and DEGENARO, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jerone McDougald, pro se. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Thomas Madden and Andrea K. 
Boyd, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent. 
__________________