Case Title: Swain v. Adult Parole Authority

Citation: 2017-Ohio-9175

Docket Number: 2017-0332

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2017-12-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Swain v. Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-9175.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2017-OHIO-9175 
THE STATE EX REL. SWAIN, APPELLANT, v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY, 
APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Swain v. Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion No. 
2017-Ohio-9175.] 
Mandamus—Action by inmate—R.C. 2969.25(C)—Failure to file six-month 
statement of balance in inmate’s account certified by institutional cashier 
warrants dismissal—Defect cannot be cured―Dismissal by court of 
appeals affirmed. 
(No. 2017-0332—Submitted September 12, 2017—Decided December 27, 2017.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 16AP-519,  
2017-Ohio-517. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Sean Swain, sought a writ of mandamus in the Tenth 
District Court of Appeals to compel appellee, Ohio Adult Parole Authority, to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
expunge its records of allegedly inaccurate information and to provide him with a 
“meaningful opportunity for parole based upon accurate factual findings.” The 
Tenth District dismissed Swain’s complaint due to his failure to attach to his 
affidavit of indigency a certified statement from the institutional cashier in 
compliance with R.C. 2969.25(C).  We affirm the court of appeals’ judgment. 
{¶ 2} When an inmate files a civil action or appeal against a government 
entity or employee in a court of common pleas, court of appeals, county court, or 
municipal court, he must comply with the procedural requirements contained in 
R.C. 2969.25.  See also R.C. 2969.21(B).  R.C. 2969.25(C) requires an inmate 
seeking a waiver of the applicable filing fee to submit with his complaint an 
affidavit of indigency and “[a] statement that sets forth the balance in the inmate 
account of the inmate for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the 
institutional cashier.”  Noncompliance with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 
2969.25 is fatal to a complaint for a writ of mandamus and warrants dismissal of 
the inmate’s action.  State ex rel. Pamer v. Collier, 108 Ohio St.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-
1507, 844 N.E.2d 842, ¶ 5; State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-
Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 3} When he filed his complaint in the court of appeals, Swain also filed 
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, to which he attached an affidavit that 
attested to both his indigency and his prior civil actions.  His motion stated that a 
certified cashier’s statement of his prison account was attached, yet no statement 
was filed.  He attempted to comply with the requirements by subsequently filing 
another affidavit of indigency and a statement of the running balance in his prison 
account for the previous six months. 
{¶ 4} Swain’s belated attempt to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) “does not 
excuse his noncompliance.” Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211, 2003-Ohio-
5533, 797 N.E.2d 982, ¶ 9.  In addition, the account statement Swain attached to 
his affidavit was not certified by the institutional cashier.  State ex rel. Ridenour v. 
January Term, 2017 
 
3
Brunsman, 117 Ohio St.3d 260, 2008-Ohio-854, 883 N.E.2d 438 (affirming the 
dismissal of a mandamus action because the inmate’s account statement was not 
certified by the institutional cashier).  Thus, dismissal of Swain’s petition was 
warranted on this basis. 
{¶ 5} The court of appeals did not err by dismissing Swain’s petition for 
noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(C).  We therefore affirm the judgment of the 
court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER, 
and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Sean Swain, pro se. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Zoe A. Lamberson, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
_________________