Case Title: State ex rel. Reeves v. Chief of Police

Citation: 2015-Ohio-2909

Docket Number: 2014-1850

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-07-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Reeves v. Chief of Police, Cedar Point Police Dept., Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-
2909.] 
 
 
 
 
 
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-2909 
THE STATE EX REL. REEVES, APPELLANT, v. CHIEF OF POLICE, CEDAR POINT 
POLICE DEPARTMENT, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Reeves v. Chief of Police, Cedar Point Police 
Dept., Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2909.] 
Mandamus—Public 
records—Affidavit 
of 
indigency—Affidavit 
must 
be 
notarized—Complaint must be verified—Denial of writ affirmed. 
(No. 2014-1850—Submitted April 14, 2015—Decided July 22, 2015.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Erie County, No. E-14-108,  
2014-Ohio-4372. 
_____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the dismissal of this mandamus case in which the relator, 
Christopher Reeves, a federal inmate, alleges that he made a public-records 
request of the chief of police of the Cedar Point Police Department.  Reeves sued 
in mandamus on August 21, 2014, in the Sixth District Court of Appeals, seeking 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
a writ compelling the production of the requested records.  Along with his 
complaint, Reeves filed an affidavit of indigency. 
{¶ 2} The respondent filed no response.  On September 25, 2014, the court 
of appeals dismissed the case for two reasons.  First, the court found that Reeves 
failed to comply with a local rule requiring a $100 deposit or a sworn affidavit of 
indigency, because Reeves’s affidavit was not notarized.  Second, the court found 
that Reeves failed to comply with the same rule because his affidavit was not 
accompanied by the certificate of a prison officer verifying Reeves’s lack of 
funds. 
{¶ 3} We affirm based on the first reason.  Specifically, 6th 
Dist.Loc.App.R. 7(A) requires filers of original actions to tender a $100 deposit or 
a “sworn affidavit of inability to secure costs by such prepayment.”  Under R.C. 
2319.02, an affidavit is defined as “a written declaration under oath, made without 
notice to the adverse party.”  Reeves’s affidavit is not notarized and therefore is 
not under oath.  See Rudd v. Graham, 74 Ohio St.3d 1506, 1506, 659 N.E.2d 797 
(1996) (affidavit that was not notarized did not “meet the requirements of an 
affidavit of indigency and therefore [was] not sufficient for waiver of the docket 
fee”).  Reeves’s affidavit does not satisfy the requirement of the local rule, and 
therefore the court of appeals was correct in dismissing the case on this ground 
alone. 
{¶ 4} Moreover, a mandamus complaint must be “verified by affidavit.”  
R.C. 2731.04.  Reeves’s complaint is not notarized or accompanied by a notarized 
affidavit.  Although not mentioned by the court of appeals, this is an additional 
reason to affirm the court’s decision to dismiss the case. 
{¶ 5} We reject, however, the court of appeals’ second reason for 
dismissing Reeves’s complaint.  The local rule also requires that “if the affidavit 
[of indigency] is filed by an inmate of a state institution it shall be accompanied, 
as an exhibit thereto, by a certificate of the superintendent or other appropriate 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
officer of the institution stating the amount of funds, if any, which the inmate has 
on deposit with the institution available to the inmate to secure costs.”  6th 
Dist.Loc.App.R. 7(A).  The court of appeals reasoned that because Reeves is an 
inmate, the local rule required him to include the certificate.  However, as Reeves 
points out, he is a federal inmate, not “an inmate of a state institution.”  R.C. 
2969.25(C), the statute similarly requiring a certificate of inmate account, also 
does not apply to inmates in a federal prison, as the definition of “inmate” for 
purposes of that statute is “a person who is in actual confinement in a state 
correctional institution * * *.”  R.C. 2969.21(D). 
{¶ 6} We affirm because Reeves failed to file a notarized affidavit in 
support of his request for a waiver of fees and because his complaint for a writ of 
mandamus was not verified. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_____________________ 
 
Christopher Y. Reeves, pro se. 
_____________________