Case Title: State ex rel. Woods v. Heekin

Citation: 2023-Ohio-2334

Docket Number: 2022-1411

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2023-07-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Woods v. Heekin, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2334.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2023-OHIO-2334 
THE STATE EX REL. WOODS, APPELLANT, v. HEEKIN, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Woods v. Heekin, Slip Opinion No.  
2023-Ohio-2334.] 
Mandamus—Court of appeals erred in dismissing petition for purported failure to 
file affidavit of prior civil actions as required by R.C. 2969.25(A)—
Judgment reversed and cause remanded. 
(No. 2022-1411—Submitted April 4, 2023—Decided July 11, 2023.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-220434. 
_______________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Jeffery Woods, appeals the First District Court of Appeals’ 
dismissal of his petition for a writ of mandamus against appellee, Hamilton County 
Common Pleas Court Judge Tom Heekin.  The court of appeals dismissed Woods’s 
petition, concluding that he had failed to file an affidavit of prior civil actions, as 
required by R.C. 2969.25(A).  Because Woods did file the required affidavit, we 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
reverse the judgment dismissing Woods’s petition and remand the case to the court 
of appeals. 
BACKGROUND 
{¶ 2} Woods is an inmate at the Marion Correctional Institution, where he 
is incarcerated for 1986 convictions for rape, attempted rape, aggravated robbery, 
and robbery. 
{¶ 3} In September 2022, Woods filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in 
the First District against Judge Heekin, seeking an order compelling him to vacate 
an August 2019 judgment entry dismissing a malpractice case Woods filed against 
his criminal-defense attorney.  Woods simultaneously filed an affidavit titled 
“motion/affidavit for the full waiver of prepayment of the filing fee” and citing R.C. 
2969.21(A) and 2969.25(A) and (C), which indicated that he had filed one federal 
civil action in the previous five years.  The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed 
Woods’s petition based on his purported failure to file an affidavit of prior civil 
actions, as required by R.C. 2969.25(A). 
ANALYSIS 
{¶ 4} Under R.C. 2969.25(A), an inmate who commences a civil action 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.”  The affidavit must include (1) 
a brief description of the nature of the civil action or appeal, (2) the case name, case 
number, and court in which the civil action or appeal was brought, (3) the name of 
each party, and (4) the outcome of each civil action or appeal.  Id.  Compliance with 
R.C. 2969.25(A) is mandatory, and a failure to comply warrants dismissal of the 
action.  State v. Henton, 146 Ohio St.3d 9, 2016-Ohio-1518, 50 N.E.3d 553, ¶ 3. 
{¶ 5} The court of appeals dismissed Woods’s petition, concluding that 
Woods had failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A).  The court erred because Woods 
filed with his mandamus petition a time-stamped affidavit stating that he had filed 
January Term, 2023 
 
3 
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio a “civil right[s] 
complaint” under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, and 1986 that was captioned Woods v. 
Ney, case No. 1:20-cv-693.  Woods provided the names of the parties to the federal 
lawsuit and stated that the action was dismissed and that he did not appeal from the 
dismissal. 
{¶ 6} Despite its misleading title, the affidavit Woods filed with his petition 
supports his claim that he, in fact, complied with R.C. 2969.25(A). 
CONCLUSION 
{¶ 7} The court of appeals erred when it dismissed Woods’s petition for a 
writ of mandamus for noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) because the record 
contains the required affidavit.  We therefore reverse the court of appeals’ judgment 
dismissing Woods’s petition, and we remand the case to that court for consideration 
of the petition. 
Judgment reversed  
and cause remanded. 
KENNEDY, C.J., and DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and BRUNNER, JJ., 
concur. 
FISCHER and DETERS, JJ., not participating. 
________________ 
Jeffery Woods, pro se. 
Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. 
Donovan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_________________