Case Title: State ex rel. Watkins v. Andrews

Citation: 2015-Ohio-1100

Docket Number: 2014-0629

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-03-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Watkins v. Andrews, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1100.]  
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-1100 
THE STATE EX REL. WATKINS, APPELLANT, v. ANDREWS, CHIEF, ADULT 
PAROLE AUTHORITY, ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Watkins v. Andrews,  
Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1100.] 
Mandamus—R.C. 2969.25—Failure to file affidavit with complaint describing 
each civil action or appeal of a civil action filed in the previous five years 
in any state or federal court—Defect cannot be cured—Court of appeals’ 
dismissal of  complaint affirmed. 
(No. 2014-0629—Submitted January 13, 2015—Decided March 26, 2015.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,  
No. 13AP760, 2014-Ohio-1072. 
_____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing an 
original action in mandamus brought by appellant, Charles C. Watkins, who 
claims that appellees Sara Andrews, chief of the Adult Parole Authority, and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Cynthia Mausser, chair of the Parole Board, failed to afford him review of his 
parole. 
{¶ 2} The Tenth District Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint sua 
sponte because Watkins failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A)(1).  That statute 
requires an inmate commencing an action against a government entity or 
employee to file 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.  The 
court of appeals held that Watkins’s affidavit did not comply with R.C. 
2969.25(A)(1).  Watkins claims that it did and that the court of appeals could not 
sua sponte dismiss his complaint without notice. 
{¶ 3} Watkins’s affidavit does not comply with the statute, and the court 
below did not err by dismissing his complaint sua sponte.  We affirm. 
Facts 
{¶ 4} Watkins, an inmate at North Central Correctional Complex, filed 
an original action on August 29, 2013, petitioning the Tenth District Court of 
Appeals for a writ of mandamus against appellees.  The magistrate in the court of 
appeals found that Watkins had failed to meet the mandatory filing requirement in 
R.C. 2969.25(A) and recommended that the failure required dismissal of the 
action.  Specifically, the magistrate found that the affidavit stated only that 
Watkins had not filed a civil action in the preceding twelve months, while the 
statute required a description of any civil action filed in the previous five years.  
The magistrate recommended that the court sua sponte dismiss the action.  The 
court of appeals overruled Watkins’s objections to the magistrate’s decision, 
adopted the magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, denied the writ, 
and dismissed the cause. 
{¶ 5} Watkins appealed the Tenth District’s decision to this court, and 
both parties timely filed briefs. 
 
 
January Term, 2015 
3 
 
Analysis 
{¶ 6} Watkins raises two propositions of law.  First, he claims that his 
affidavit did meet the requirements in R.C. 2969.25(A), because it contained a 
brief description of the civil action, the case name, number, and court, the name of 
each party, and the outcome.  He does not address the court of appeals’ holding 
that the affidavit covered only the previous twelve months rather than the five 
years required by the statute. 
{¶ 7} The court of appeals is correct.  The statute requires an affidavit 
that addresses civil actions and appeals filed in the previous five years, and 
Watkins’s affidavit addresses only the twelve months prior to the filing of the 
complaint.  Compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is mandatory.  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 (“ ‘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. Hawk v. Athens Cty., 106 Ohio St.3d 183, 2005-Ohio-4383, 833 N.E.2d 296, 
¶ 5. 
{¶ 8} Watkins’s second proposition of law—that the court of appeals 
abused its discretion by sua sponte dismissing his petition—is equally without 
merit.  The court of appeals did not need to give notice of its intent to dismiss the 
petition, because a dismissal for failure to meet the requirements of R.C. 2969.25 
is not a dismissal on the merits.  State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, 140 Ohio St.3d 297, 
2014-Ohio-3735, 17 N.E.3d 581, ¶ 5.  “Because the failure to comply with the 
mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25 cannot be cured, prior notice of the 
dismissal would have afforded the relator no recourse.”  Id.  Watkins’s complaint 
was defective on its face because it failed to comply with a statutory requirement.  
A belated attempt to amend or file a correct affidavit does not excuse 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25. Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211, 2003-
Ohio-5533, 797 N.E.2d 982, ¶ 9. 
{¶ 9} Therefore, the court of appeals did err by dismissing Watkins’s 
complaint sua sponte.  We affirm. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_____________________ 
Charles L. Watkins, pro se. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and William D. Maynard, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
_____________________