Title: State ex rel. Evans v. Tieman

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. Tieman, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-2411.] 
 
 
 
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. 2019-OHIO-2411 
THE STATE EX REL. EVANS v. TIEMAN, PROS. ATTY., ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Evans v. Tieman, Slip Opinion No.  
2019-Ohio-2411.] 
Mandamus—R.C. 2969.25 does not apply to original actions filed in the Supreme 
Court of Ohio—Motions to dismiss denied—Complaint dismissed for 
failure to state a claim. 
(No. 2019-0145—Submitted April 23, 2019—Decided June 20, 2019.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an original action in mandamus brought by relator, William H. 
Evans Jr.  Respondents, nine public officials in Scioto and Franklin Counties, have 
filed motions to dismiss.  For the reasons set forth below, we deny the motions but 
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Allegations in the complaint 
{¶ 2} Evans is an inmate at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center.  His 
complaint concerns three cases in Scioto County Common Pleas Court: case Nos. 
17CIV-0018, 18CIH-00065, and 04CR-000922.  In each case, Evans made filings 
in which he alleged public corruption or criminal acts by public officials.  Likewise, 
he made filings alleging criminal conduct in four cases in Franklin County 
Common Pleas Court: case Nos. 17CV-009206, 18CV-002256, 18CV-001481, and 
18CV-002819. 
{¶ 3} On January 30, 2019, he filed the present complaint for writs of 
mandamus against nine public officials.  Evans seeks to compel respondents Scioto 
County Prosecuting Attorney Shane A. Tieman and Franklin County Prosecuting 
Attorney Ron O’Brien to investigate and prosecute Evans’s allegations of criminal 
activity in their respective counties.  He also seeks to compel respondents Scioto 
County Probate Judge Alan Lemons, Scioto County Common Pleas Court Judge 
Mark Kuhn, and Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judges Jaiza Page,1 
Michael Holbrook, Kim Brown, and Kimberly Cocroft to issue arrest warrants 
based on the allegations he has made in the cases they preside over or refer the 
allegations to a prosecutor for investigation.  And finally, Evans seeks a writ of 
mandamus to compel respondent Scioto County Common Pleas Court Clerk Lisa 
Novinger to immediately notify him and guarantee his receipt of any such notice in 
two of his Scioto County cases. 
{¶ 4} The Scioto County respondents filed a motion to dismiss on February 
13, 2019.  On February 19, Evans filed a motion asking for the appointment of a 
special prosecutor.  The Franklin County respondents filed a separate motion to 
dismiss on February 25.  Evans has not responded to the motions to dismiss. 
 
 
                                                 
1 Under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.06(B), Judge Jaiza Page is automatically substituted for retired Judge Guy 
Reece as a party to this action. 
January Term, 2019 
 
3
Legal analysis 
The motions to dismiss 
{¶ 5} Both motions present a single argument: the complaint should be 
dismissed because Evans failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25’s filing requirements.  
This argument is not well taken. 
{¶ 6} The Ohio Revised Code imposes special procedural requirements on 
inmates who file in certain courts civil actions against the government or its 
employees.  R.C. 2969.25(A) requires the inmate to file an affidavit describing each 
civil action or appeal the inmate has filed within the preceding five years.  And if 
the inmate seeks a waiver of prepayment of the filing fees, then R.C. 2969.25(C) 
requires the inmate to submit affidavits of waiver and indigency, which must 
contain a certified statement from the institutional cashier setting forth the balance 
in the inmate’s account for each of the preceding six months and a statement of all 
other cash and things of value owned by the inmate at the time of filing. 
{¶ 7} “ ‘The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to 
comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.’ ”  State ex rel. Perotti 
v. Clipper, 151 Ohio St.3d 132, 2017-Ohio-8134, 86 N.E.3d 331, ¶ 3, quoting State 
ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5.  
In their motion to dismiss, the Scioto County respondents correctly note that Evans 
is an inmate who has filed a civil action against a state employee and that he did 
not attach an affidavit stating his account balance.  The Franklin County 
respondents observe that in addition, he omitted the affidavit of prior civil actions.  
Nevertheless, respondents are not entitled to have the complaint dismissed on these 
bases. 
{¶ 8} We have held that R.C. 2969.25 is inapplicable to original actions 
filed in this court.  See, e.g., State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 155 Ohio St.3d 
216, 2018-Ohio-4200, 120 N.E.3d 779, ¶ 8-10.  The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 
apply only to “a civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee,” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
R.C. 2969.25(A).  The statutory definition of that phrase does not include original 
actions filed in this court.  See R.C. 2969.21(B)(1)(a) and (b).  Indeed, R.C. 
2969.21(B)(2) expressly excludes original actions filed in this court from the scope 
of R.C. 2969.25. 
{¶ 9} Original actions filed in this court are governed by the Supreme Court 
Rules of Practice.  Those rules impose no special filing requirements on inmates 
seeking writs of mandamus. 
{¶ 10} The motions to dismiss are premised entirely upon Evans’s 
noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25.  Because that statute does not apply, we deny 
the motions to dismiss. 
S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04 review of the complaint 
{¶ 11} Under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04(C), we conduct an independent 
assessment of the sufficiency of a mandamus complaint.  To be entitled to a writ of 
mandamus, Evans must establish by clear and convincing evidence (1) a clear legal 
right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of respondents to 
provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  
State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, 
¶ 6, 13.  Our review of the complaint shows that Evans fails to state a claim for 
relief in mandamus because he fails to allege facts that if proved would establish a 
clear legal duty to act on the part of respondents. 
{¶ 12} “A private citizen having knowledge of the facts who seeks to cause 
an arrest or prosecution under this section may file an affidavit charging the offense 
committed with a reviewing official for the purpose of review to determine if a 
complaint should be filed by the prosecuting attorney * * *.”  R.C. 2935.09(D).  
The statute defines “reviewing official” as a judge, magistrate, or prosecutor.  R.C. 
2935.09(A).  “R.C. 2935.09 must be read in pari materia with R.C. 2935.10, which 
prescribes the procedure to be followed once a citizen files a criminal complaint.”  
State ex rel. Bunting v. Styer, 147 Ohio St.3d 462, 2016-Ohio-5781, 67 N.E.3d 755, 
January Term, 2019 
 
5
¶ 15.  If the offense alleged is a felony, the reviewing official must issue an arrest 
warrant or refer the matter to the prosecutor for investigation, “unless [the official] 
has reason to believe that [the affidavit] was not filed in good faith, or the claim is 
not meritorious.”  R.C. 2935.10(A). 
{¶ 13} As a preliminary matter, we note that Evans concedes he did not 
submit all of his accusations in the form of an affidavit, as required to trigger the 
statute.  He is not entitled to mandamus relief based on any allegation he made that 
was not in the form of an affidavit.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Dew v. Vivo, 7th Dist. 
Mahoning No. 12 MA 94, 2012-Ohio-3423, ¶ 7 (denying mandamus relief because 
R.C. 2935.09(D) requires the filing of an affidavit, not a complaint or other 
pleading); State ex rel. Muff v. Wollenberg, 5th Dist. Perry No. 08-CA-11, 2008-
Ohio-4699, ¶ 12 (same). 
{¶ 14} Not only does Evans’s present complaint fail to indicate which of his 
allegations were in the form of an affidavit and which were not, the complaint fails 
to describe any actual criminal conduct alleged in his previous filings in Scioto and 
Franklin Counties.  The only specific wrongful conduct described in the complaint 
is that, according to Evans, a Scioto County assistant prosecutor “has [repeatedly] 
filed frivolous motions to dismiss in Ohio Supreme Court cases of Evans which are 
unsupported by existing law.”  (Brackets sic.)  Evans does not allege that the actions 
of this Scioto County prosecutor violated any criminal statute, without which the 
respondent judges had no legal duty to issue an arrest warrant or refer the matter 
for prosecution.  And likewise, the facts alleged in Evans’s complaint did not show 
that the county prosecutors abused their discretion by failing to prosecute in the 
face of this accusation.  See Mootispaw v. Eckstein, 76 Ohio St.3d 383, 385, 667 
N.E.2d 1197 (1996) (“A prosecuting attorney will not be compelled to prosecute a 
complaint except when the failure to prosecute constitutes an abuse of discretion”). 
{¶ 15} Even in his motion for the appointment of a special prosecutor, 
Evans does not identify the underlying allegedly criminal conduct.  Nor has he 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
identified a statutory basis for us to grant such relief.  That motion is therefore 
denied. 
{¶ 16} Finally, Evans seeks a writ of mandamus against Clerk Novinger 
requiring her to notify him of any final dispositions in two of his cases and 
guarantee his receipt of any such notice.  A clerk of court is required to serve notice 
of a court judgment on all parties not in default within three days.  Civ.R. 58(B).  
But Evans does not allege that the clerk has failed to serve notice of final judgments 
upon him.  Rather, he concedes the possibility that no such judgment has yet been 
issued.  However, “[m]andamus will not lie to remedy the anticipated 
nonperformance of a duty.”  State ex rel. Home Care Pharmacy, Inc. v. Creasy, 67 
Ohio St.2d 342, 343, 423 N.E.2d 482 (1981).  Evans’s demand for a writ of 
mandamus with respect to Clerk Novinger is therefore, at best, premature. 
{¶ 17} For the reasons discussed above, we deny the motions to dismiss, 
deny the motion to appoint a special prosecutor, and dismiss the complaint. 
Motions denied 
and complaint dismissed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and 
STEWART, JJ., concur. 
KENNEDY, J., concurs in judgment only. 
_________________ 
William H. Evans Jr., pro se. 
Ron O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Iris L. Jin, 
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the Franklin County respondents. 
Shane A. Tieman, Scioto County Prosecuting Attorney, and Danielle M. 
Parker, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the Scioto County respondents. 
_________________