Case Title: State ex rel. Walker v. Ballinger

Citation: 2024-Ohio-181

Docket Number: 2023-0663

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2024-01-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Walker v. Ballinger, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-181.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2024-OHIO-181 
THE STATE EX REL. WALKER, APPELLANT, v. BALLINGER, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Walker v. Ballinger, Slip Opinion No.  
2024-Ohio-181.] 
Mandamus—Inmate’s complaint challenging conviction does not state a claim 
upon which mandamus relief may be granted—Court of appeals’ judgment 
dismissing complaint affirmed. 
(No. 2023-0663—Submitted December 12, 2023—Decided January 23, 2024.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-23-09. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Keith Walker, appeals the Third District Court of Appeals’ 
judgment dismissing his complaint for a writ of mandamus under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).  
Walker requested a writ ordering appellee, Marion Municipal Court Judge Teresa 
Ballinger, to vacate a judgment convicting him of domestic violence.  We affirm 
the Third District’s judgment. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2 
I.  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
{¶ 2} Walker was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence in 2020.  
He appeared at a plea hearing by videoconference in May 2020, during the early 
stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Walker alleges that (1) he and his counsel 
appeared for the hearing by video from his counsel’s office and (2) the prosecutor 
and alleged victim appeared by video from the prosecutor’s office.  Walker also 
alleges that no municipal-court judge was present for the plea hearing and that the 
prosecutor himself purported to accept Walker’s plea and sentence him.  Walker 
received the maximum sentence allowed by law. 
{¶ 3} Walker filed in the municipal court a motion to vacate his guilty plea, 
arguing that the plea and the judgment of conviction were “void” because there had 
been no judge present at the hearing and the prosecutor had purported to act in place 
of the judge.  Judge Ballinger denied the motion, finding based on her review of 
the record that Walker’s allegations were false.  According to Judge Ballinger’s 
findings, an acting judge of the municipal court—not the prosecutor—presided 
over Walker’s plea hearing, accepted his plea, and sentenced him. 
{¶ 4} In February 2023, Walker, while incarcerated, filed a complaint for a 
writ of mandamus in the Third District.  Walker requested a writ ordering Judge 
Ballinger to vacate his conviction as an “illegal and void judgment.”  Judge 
Ballinger filed a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), which Walker opposed.  
In her motion, Judge Ballinger argued that (1) Walker’s complaint did not state a 
claim for relief under any possible theory and (2) Walker had not complied with 
R.C. 2969.25(A), which requires an inmate commencing a civil action in a court of 
appeals to file an affidavit listing each civil action or appeal he had filed in the 
previous five years. 
{¶ 5} The court of appeals granted Judge Ballinger’s motion and dismissed 
Walker’s complaint.  The court agreed that Walker had failed to submit the affidavit 
required by R.C. 2969.25(A).  In addition, the court determined that Walker’s claim 
January Term, 2024 
 
 
3 
was not cognizable in mandamus.  Even if the trial court’s acceptance of the plea 
was improper, the court of appeals determined, “such error is a nonjurisdictional 
matter that [Walker] could have raised on direct appeal.”  Walker has appealed to 
this court as of right. 
II.  ANALYSIS 
{¶ 6} Walker raises two issues in this appeal.  First, he argues that the court 
of appeals erred in dismissing the action based on a failure to comply with R.C. 
2969.25(A)’s affidavit requirement.  Second, Walker argues that the court erred in 
holding that he failed to state a cognizable claim in mandamus.  Walker’s first 
argument has merit, but his second does not. 
A.  R.C. 2969.25(A) 
{¶ 7} Under R.C. 2969.25(A), an inmate who commences a civil action or 
appeal in a court of appeals against a government entity or employee must file an 
affidavit describing “each civil action or appeal of a civil action that the inmate has 
filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court.”  An inmate’s failure 
to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) justifies dismissal of an action seeking an 
extraordinary writ.  State ex rel. Wickensimer v. Bartleson, 123 Ohio St.3d 154, 
2009-Ohio-4695, 914 N.E.2d 1045, ¶ 2. 
{¶ 8} Walker argued in the court of appeals that he did not have to submit 
an R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit, because he had filed no other civil actions within the 
past five years.  The court of appeals rejected this argument, citing State ex rel. 
Williams v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 22AP-662, 2023-
Ohio-850, for the proposition that Walker had to “file a statement with his 
complaint declaring that there [were] no prior civil actions to list,” id. at ¶ 15.  Given 
the absence of either an affidavit or “any mention in the complaint that he ha[d] 
filed no other civil actions or appeals in the preceding five years,” the court of 
appeals held that Walker had failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4 
{¶ 9} The court of appeals erred in so holding because the Williams decision 
upon which it relied is inconsistent with our precedent.  In Wickensimer, this court 
reversed a court of appeals’ judgment dismissing a mandamus petition for a failure 
to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A).  Wickensimer at ¶ 1.  “The plain language of the 
statute,” we held, “includes no requirement that inmates who have not filed a civil 
action or appeal of a civil action against a government entity or employee in the 
requisite five-year period file a [R.C. 2969.25(A)] affidavit.”  Id. at ¶ 3.  Similarly, 
the statute does not require a statement that the inmate has filed no such civil action 
or appeal.  Id. at ¶ 5.  The court of appeals erred in requiring more from Walker 
than the statute does. 
{¶ 10} Judge Ballinger suggests that the court of appeals’ finding of 
noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is nonetheless correct because Walker did 
not identify State v. Walker, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-20-46, an appeal commenced 
by him that was later dismissed.  Judge Ballinger attaches to her merit brief a copy 
of the court of appeals’ judgment entry dismissing that appeal on April 5, 2021.  
However, “[a] reviewing court generally may not add matter to the record before it 
and then decide the appeal on the basis of the new matter.”  State ex rel. Harris v. 
Turner, 160 Ohio St.3d 506, 2020-Ohio-2901, 159 N.E.3d 1121, ¶ 16.  And in any 
event, it is not clear whether that case was an appeal in a criminal or civil case, and 
R.C. 2969.25(A) requires disclosure of only civil actions or appeals an inmate has 
filed in the previous five years. 
B.  Mandamus 
{¶ 11} We review de novo a court of appeals’ dismissal of a mandamus 
complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).  State ex rel. McKinney v. Schmenk, 152 Ohio 
St.3d 70, 2017-Ohio-9183, 92 N.E.3d 871, ¶ 8.  To obtain a writ of mandamus, 
Walker must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty 
on the part of Judge Ballinger to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in 
the ordinary course of the law.  Id. at ¶ 9.  The court of appeals correctly dismissed 
January Term, 2024 
 
 
5 
the action under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) if, after presuming all factual allegations in the 
complaint to be true and drawing all reasonable inferences in Walker’s favor, it 
appears beyond doubt that he could prove no set of facts entitling him to a writ of 
mandamus.  Id. at ¶ 8. 
{¶ 12} Walker does not dispute that the municipal court had subject-matter 
jurisdiction over his criminal case and personal jurisdiction over him.  Rather, his 
theory of relief is that his misdemeanor domestic-violence conviction is void 
because the municipal court did not, in fact, accept his plea and enter judgment.  
This is so, Walker posits, because no judge was present when he entered his plea 
and the prosecutor himself purported to find Walker guilty and sentence him.  But 
this theory does not state a valid claim for relief in mandamus. 
{¶ 13} Walker is essentially arguing that his guilty plea is invalid, which is 
not a claim cognizable in mandamus.  See State ex rel. Mitchell v. Pittman, 169 
Ohio St.3d 357, 2022-Ohio-2542, 204 N.E.3d 534, ¶ 15.  At most, Walker’s 
argument raises a nonjurisdictional defect for which he had an adequate remedy in 
the ordinary course of the law.  See Pollock v. Morris, 35 Ohio St.3d 117, 518 
N.E.2d 1205 (1988) (validity of a guilty plea is a nonjurisdictional matter that 
should be raised on appeal or in postconviction proceedings).  The court of appeals 
was therefore correct to dismiss Walker’s complaint for failing to state a claim upon 
which mandamus relief could be granted. 
III.  CONCLUSION 
{¶ 14} Walker’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which mandamus 
relief could be granted.  We therefore affirm the judgment of the Third District 
Court of Appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, 
and DETERS, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
6 
Keith Walker, pro se. 
Mark A. Russell, Marion Law Director, and Kathryn A. McCarthy, 
Assistant Law Director, for appellee. 
_________________