Case Title: State ex rel. Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas

Citation: 2009-Ohio-4688

Docket Number: 20090802

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-09-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d 124, 
2009-Ohio-4688.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. LEON, APPELLANT, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF 
COMMON PLEAS, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas,  
123 Ohio St.3d 124, 2009-Ohio-4688.] 
Mandamus and procedendo — Local rule requiring verification of complaint and 
specific statement of facts — Writs denied. 
(No. 2009-0802 ─ Submitted September 2, 2009 ─ Decided September 15, 2009.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 92826, 
2009-Ohio-1612. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the claim 
of appellant, inmate Ricardo Leon, for writs of mandamus and procedendo to 
compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, to resentence him.  
The court of appeals concluded, based on a reasonable interpretation of its own 
appellate rule, Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1), that Leon failed to comply with its 
requirement to file an affidavit “specifying the details of the claim” when he 
merely stated in his affidavit that his complaint was true and correct to the best of 
his knowledge, recollection, and belief.  But cf. Wellington v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. 
of Elections, 117 Ohio St.3d 143, 2008-Ohio-554, 882 N.E.2d 420, ¶ 16-19 (court 
construed comparable requirement in S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B) not to require 
repetition of statements in complaint in supporting affidavit).  Notwithstanding 
Leon’s claims to the contrary, the mere fact that he is a pro se litigant does not 
entitle him to ignore the requirements of the local appellate rule.  “ ‘[P]ro se 
litigants * * * are held to the same standard as litigants who are represented by 
counsel.’ ”  State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d 352, 2003-Ohio-6448, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
800 N.E.2d 25, ¶ 10, quoting Sabouri v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs. 
(2001), 145 Ohio App.3d 651, 654, 763 N.E.2d 1238. 
{¶ 2} By so holding, we need not address the merits of the court of 
appeals’ other reasons for denying the writs. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Ricardo Leon, pro se. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. 
Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
__________________