Title: State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-3735.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2014-OHIO-3735 
THE STATE EX REL. HALL, APPELLANT, v. MOHR, DIR., APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-3735.] 
Mandamus—R.C. 2969.25—Civil action by inmate against governmental entity or 
employee—Failure to file affidavit with complaint describing each civil 
action or appeal of a civil action filed in the previous five years in any 
state or federal court—Defect cannot be cured by later filing—Court of 
appeals’ dismissal of complaint affirmed. 
(No. 2014-0070—Submitted August 20, 2014—Decided September 2, 2014.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 13AP-588, 
2013-Ohio-5779. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the Tenth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of 
appellant David Hall’s complaint in mandamus.  Hall filed the action in the Tenth 
District Court of Appeals seeking an order compelling appellee, Gary Mohr, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Director of Rehabilitation and Correction, to hold an immediate hearing and grant 
Hall release from incarceration.  Except for several exhibits, the only attachment 
to the original complaint was an affidavit of verity attesting to Hall’s competency 
and the truthfulness of the statements in the complaint and the attached exhibits. 
{¶ 2} The matter was referred to a magistrate, who determined that Hall 
failed to file with his complaint several of the documents required by R.C. 
2969.25.  Specifically, he failed to file an affidavit of prior civil actions, required 
by R.C. 2969.25(A), an affidavit seeking prepayment of the court’s filing fees, an 
affidavit of indigence, and a certified copy of the institutional cashier’s statement 
setting forth the balance in his inmate account, all of which are required by R.C. 
2969.25(C).  2013-Ohio-5779, ¶ 10-12.  The magistrate concluded that 
compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is mandatory and recommended dismissal.  Id. 
at ¶ 14.  Hall objected and filed an affidavit of prior actions, an affidavit of 
indigence, and an affidavit indicating that he had not filed a grievance in an 
apparent effort to correct the deficiencies in his original pleadings. 
{¶ 3} The court of appeals adopted the magistrate’s decision, finding that 
Hall’s belated attempt to cure the defects in his complaint were to no avail, 
because the documents required by R.C. 2969.25 must be filed with the 
complaint.  Id. at ¶ 4. 
{¶ 4} We affirm.  The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory and 
failure to comply with them requires dismissal of an inmate’s complaint. State ex 
rel. Washington v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 87 Ohio St.3d 258, 259, 719 N.E.2d 
544 (1999), citing State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 
422, 696 N.E.2d 594 (1998).  As held by the court of appeals, the affidavit 
required by R.C. 2696.25(A) must be filed at the time the complaint is filed, and 
an inmate may not cure the defect by later filings.  Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio 
St.3d 211, 2003-Ohio-5533, 797 N.E.2d 982, ¶ 9 (an inmate’s “belated attempt to 
file the required affidavit does not excuse his noncompliance. See R.C. 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
2969.25(A), which requires that the affidavit be filed ‘[a]t the time that an inmate 
commences a civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee.’ ” 
[emphasis sic]). 
{¶ 5} Nor is this a dismissal on the merits requiring prior notice, as 
asserted by Hall.  Because the failure to comply with the mandatory requirements 
of R.C. 2969.25 cannot be cured, prior notice of the dismissal would have 
afforded Hall no recourse. 
{¶ 6} Therefore, the court of appeals was correct to dismiss Hall’s 
complaint in mandamus, and we affirm. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
 
David Hall, pro se. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Mindy Worly, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
__________________________