Case Title: State ex rel. Graham v. Findlay Mun. Court

Citation: 2005-Ohio-3671

Docket Number: 20050267

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-08-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Graham v. Findlay Mun. Court, 106 Ohio St.3d 63, 2005-Ohio-3671.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. GRAHAM, APPELLANT, v. FINDLAY 
 MUNICIPAL COURT, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Graham v. Findlay Mun. Court, 
106 Ohio St.3d 63, 2005-Ohio-3671.] 
R.C. 2969.25(A)(1) — Inmate’s affidavit of indigency — Inmate’s failure to 
include brief description of nature of action subjects action to dismissal. 
(No. 2005-0267 — Submitted June 15, 2005 — Decided August 3, 2005.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hancock County, No. 5-04-43. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ 
of mandamus to compel a municipal court to file a criminal complaint.  Because 
appellant failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A)(1), we affirm. 
{¶ 2} On October 29, 2004, appellant, Nathan Graham, an inmate, filed a 
complaint in the Court of Appeals for Hancock County.  Graham requested a writ 
of mandamus to compel appellee, Findlay Municipal Court, to file a criminal 
complaint that he had presented to the municipal court clerk for filing and to 
conduct a probable-cause hearing.  Graham moved for leave to proceed in forma 
pauperis — without the payment of filing fees and the deposit of costs — and 
filed an affidavit of indigency. 
{¶ 3} Graham also filed an affidavit that he claimed listed the civil 
actions in which governmental agencies were a party that he had filed in the past 
five years.  The affidavit, however, did not contain a “brief description of the 
nature” of each of the two civil actions listed.  R.C. 2969.25(A)(1).  The 
municipal court moved to dismiss the complaint. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} On January 20, 2005, the court of appeals granted the municipal 
court’s motion and dismissed Graham’s complaint.  The court of appeals held, 
inter alia, that Graham had failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25. 
{¶ 5} This cause is now before the court upon Graham’s appeal as of 
right. 
{¶ 6} 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. Norris v. Giavasis, 100 
Ohio St.3d 371, 2003-Ohio-6609, 800 N.E.2d 365, ¶ 4, quoting State ex rel. White 
v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5.  Graham 
failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A)(1).  Norris at ¶ 2, 4. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Nathan Graham, pro se. 
 
David Hackenberg, Findlay Director of Law, for appellee. 
______________________