Case Title: State ex rel. Ridenour v. Brunsman

Citation: 2008-Ohio-854

Docket Number: 20071831

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-03-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Ridenour v. Brunsman, 117 Ohio St.3d 260, 2008-Ohio-854.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. RIDENOUR, APPELLANT, v. BRUNSMAN,  
WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Ridenour v. Brunsman,  
117 Ohio St.3d 260, 2008-Ohio-854.] 
Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of mandamus – Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2007-1831 ─ Submitted February 27, 2008 ─ Decided March 5, 2008.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, No. 07CA2979. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an inmate’s 
complaint for a writ of mandamus.  Because the inmate failed to comply with 
R.C. 2969.25, we affirm. 
{¶ 2} In August 2007, appellant, William L. Ridenour, an inmate at 
Chillicothe Correctional Institution, filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for 
Ross County. Ridenour requested a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, 
Warden Timothy Brunsman, to provide Ridenour with “adequate clothing in the 
form of a raincoat, rubber over-shoes and thermal underwear for inclement 
weather at State expense.”  Ridenour requested waiver of prepayment of the 
court’s full filing fees and included a statement purporting to set forth the balance 
in his inmate account for the preceding six months, but the statement was not 
certified by the institutional cashier as required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1).  The court 
of appeals sua sponte dismissed Ridenour’s complaint for failure to comply with 
R.C. 2969.25(C). 
{¶ 3} Ridenour later filed a motion for reconsideration of the court of 
appeals’ dismissal of his mandamus action.  Ridenour attached a statement setting 
forth his inmate account for the six months preceding his complaint, but this 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
statement was again not certified by the prison cashier.  The court of appeals 
denied Ridenour’s motion. 
{¶ 4} This cause is now before the court upon Ridenour’s appeal as of 
right from the dismissal of his mandamus complaint. 
{¶ 5} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.  “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. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio 
St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5.  Ridenour failed to comply with 
R.C. 2969.25(C)(1), which requires an inmate filing a civil action against a 
government employee seeking waiver of prepayment of court filing fees to file 
with the complaint 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.” 
{¶ 6} Moreover, although Ridenour claims that the court erred in failing 
to grant him leave to amend his complaint to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C)(1), he 
never filed a motion to amend his complaint.  Instead, he filed a motion for 
reconsideration, which was “a nullity because his mandamus action was filed 
originally in the court of appeals, rendering App.R. 26(A) inapplicable.”  State ex 
rel. Washington v. Crush, 106 Ohio St.3d 60, 2005-Ohio-3675, 831 N.E.2d 432, ¶ 
5. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
William L. Ridenour, pro se. 
 
Marc Dann, Attorney General, and Laura D. Wood, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
______________________