Title: State ex rel. Evans v. McGrath

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. Evans v. McGrath, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-8290.] 
 
 
 
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. 2017-OHIO-8290 
THE STATE EX REL. EVANS, APPELLANT, v. MCGRATH, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Evans v. McGrath, Slip Opinion No.  
2017-Ohio-8290.] 
Prohibition—R.C. 2969.25(C)(1)—Failure to document balance of inmate account 
for six months preceding filing of petition—Court of appeals’ dismissal of 
petition affirmed. 
(No. 2016-1911—Submitted June 20, 2017—Decided October 25, 2017.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 
No. 16AP-238, 2016-Ohio-8348. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals 
dismissing the petition of appellant, William H. Evans Jr., for a writ of prohibition 
against appellee, Court of Claims Judge Patrick M. McGrath. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} Evans, an inmate at Ross Correctional Institution, filed a negligence 
action against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction in 2014.  
Judge McGrath dismissed the action, but the appellate court reversed the judgment 
and remanded the cause for further proceedings.  Evans v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & 
Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 15AP-463, 2015-Ohio-3492, ¶ 12, 17.  On remand, 
Judge McGrath denied Evans’s motion for summary judgment. 
{¶ 3} On March 30, 2016, Evans filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in 
the Tenth District Court of Appeals, arguing that Judge McGrath lacked jurisdiction 
to deny his summary-judgment motion.  According to Evans, Judge McGrath is 
“holding proceedings which are barred by ‘law of the case,’ ‘res judicata,’ and the 
‘mandate rule.’ ” 
{¶ 4} On December 22, 2016, the court of appeals dismissed Evans’s 
petition for noncompliance with the mandatory filing requirements of R.C. 
2969.25(C)(1).  Evans appealed. 
{¶ 5} Under R.C. 2969.25(C)(1), an inmate who moves to waive payment 
of filing fees when filing a petition for a writ in the court of appeals, as here, must 
file with his or her petition “[a] statement that sets forth the balance in the inmate 
account of the inmate for each of the preceding sixth months, as certified by the 
institutional cashier.”  This court has long held that this requirement is “mandatory, 
and failure to comply * * * subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.”  State ex rel. 
White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 6} Evans concedes that his filing is not in compliance with R.C. 
2969.25(C)(1), but he offers several reasons why we should reverse the Tenth 
District’s dismissal of his petition.  First, he argues that R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) does 
not require strict compliance and that interpreting it as mandatory is 
unconstitutional.  But he has failed to rebut the presumed constitutionality of the 
statute, and we have previously rejected a similar argument raised by another 
inmate.  See Boles v. Knab, 129 Ohio St. 3d 222, 2011-Ohio-2859, 951 N.E.2d 389, 
January Term, 2017 
 
3
¶ 3; see also Cleveland v. State, 128 Ohio St.3d 135, 2010-Ohio-6318, 942 N.E.2d 
370, ¶ 6 (statutes are presumed constitutional and will not be invalidated unless the 
challenger establishes that the legislation is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable 
doubt). 
{¶ 7} Second, Evans argues that he should be given an opportunity to cure 
the defect.  But noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) cannot be cured by 
amendment after a petition is filed.  State ex rel. Jackson v. Calabrese, 143 Ohio 
St.3d 409, 2015-Ohio-2918, 38 N.E.3d 880, ¶ 5.  And “[p]ro se litigants are not 
afforded greater rights than parties who retain counsel” or entitled to a court’s 
assistance “in remedying deficient pleadings.”  Prewitt v. Wood Cty. Prosecutor’s 
Office, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-15-029, 2016-Ohio-1477, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 8} Finally, Evans argues that an internal prison policy—the cashier 
allegedly “will not send the 6-month statement to the inmate”—excuses his 
noncompliance.  But as we have previously explained, a prisoner can forward his 
petition and other documents to the prison cashier so the cashier can mail all 
pertinent documentation to the court clerk.  Boles at ¶ 4.  Indeed, Evans’s own brief 
suggests that he has already done just that, refiling his petition in the Tenth District 
with the appropriate documentation.  Thus, the alleged prison policy did not prevent 
Evans from complying with R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). 
{¶ 9} For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals 
dismissing Evans’s prohibition petition.  We also deny Evans’s “motion for this 
court to determine the entire matter * * * on merits.” 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, and 
DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
O’NEILL, J., dissents for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in 
Robinson v. Miller, 148 Ohio St.3d 429, 2016-Ohio-7828, 71 N.E.3d 255. 
_________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
William H. Evans Jr., pro se. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Bridget C. Coontz, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
_________________