Case Title: State ex rel. Washington v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

Citation: 1999-Ohio-53

Docket Number: 19991005

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-12-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE STATE EX REL. WASHINGTON, APPELLANT, v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE 
AUTHORITY, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Washington v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 
258.] 
Mandamus sought to compel Ohio Adult Parole Authority to release relator on 
parole, or alternatively, order a new parole revocation hearing — 
Dismissal of complaint affirmed. 
(No. 99-1005 – Submitted October 12, 1999 – Decided December 1, 1999.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 98AP-73. 
 
In 1998, appellant, Robert H. Washington, Jr., an inmate at London 
Correctional Institution, filed a complaint in the court of appeals for a writ of 
mandamus to compel appellee, Ohio Adult Parole Authority (“APA”), to release 
him on parole, or alternatively, order a new parole revocation hearing.  Washington 
claimed that the APA used incompetent evidence to revoke his parole.  
Washington did not file with his complaint an affidavit describing each civil action 
or appeal of a civil action he had filed in the previous five years in any state or 
federal court, and his affidavit of indigency did not contain a statement setting 
forth the balance in his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as 
certified by the institutional cashier.  See R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C). 
 
In 1999, the court of appeals dismissed Washington’s complaint. 
__________________ 
 
Robert H. Washington, Jr., pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Jihad M. Smaili, Assistant 
Attorney General, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Washington asserts that the court of appeals erred in 
dismissing his mandamus action.  Washington’s claims are meritless. 
 
2
 
As the court of appeals properly concluded, Washington, who does not claim 
that R.C. 2969.25 is inapplicable to mandamus actions, did not comply with the 
mandatory requirements of that statute in commencing his action.  See State ex rel. 
Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 422, 696 N.E.2d 594, 594-
595. 
 
In addition, to the extent that Washington seeks release from prison, 
mandamus is inappropriate.  State ex rel. Larkins v. Aurelius (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 
112, 113, 702 N.E.2d 79, 79-80. 
 
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.