Title: State ex rel. Manns v. Henson

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Manns v. Henson, 119 Ohio St.3d 348, 2008-Ohio-4478.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. MANNS, APPELLANT, v. HENSON, JUDGE, ET AL., 
APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Manns v. Henson, 119 Ohio St.3d 348, 2008-Ohio-4478.] 
Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of prohibition — Judgment 
affirmed. 
(No. 2008-0710 ─ Submitted August 26, 2008 ─ Decided September 10, 2008.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 08-CA-4. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an inmate’s petition 
for a writ of prohibition.  Because the inmate failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25, 
we affirm. 
{¶ 2} Appellant, Tremaine T. Manns, an inmate at Richland Correctional 
Institution, filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Richland County for a writ 
of prohibition to prevent further prosecution in a criminal case.  Manns named 
appellees, Richland County Common Pleas Court Judge James D. Henson, 
Richland County Prosecuting Attorney James J. Mayer Jr., and Richland County 
Clerk of Courts Linda H. Frary, as respondents.  Manns’s petition did not include 
an affidavit containing a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action 
he had filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court, as required by 
R.C. 2969.25(A).  In addition, although Manns filed an affidavit of indigency in 
which he claimed that he could not pay the fee to file his prohibition action, he 
did not file the statement required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) setting forth his inmate 
account “for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional 
cashier.”  Appellees filed a motion to dismiss, and the court of appeals granted the 
motion and dismissed the cause. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} This cause is now before the court upon Manns’s appeal as of 
right. 
{¶ 4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.  It is well settled 
that “ ‘[t]he requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply 
with them subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.’ ”  State ex rel. Ridenour v. 
Brunsman, 117 Ohio St.3d 260, 2008-Ohio-854, 883 N.E.2d 438, ¶ 5, quoting 
State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 
635, ¶ 5.  Manns’s belated attempt to file one of the required affidavits does not 
excuse his noncompliance.  Fortson v. Bradshaw, 109 Ohio St.3d 250, 2006-
Ohio-2291, 846 N.E.2d 1258, ¶ 12.  Nor does R.C. 2969.25(A) or (C) permit 
substantial compliance.  See, e.g., Martin v. Ghee (Apr. 9, 2002), Franklin App. 
No. 01AP-1380, 2002 WL 523000, * 3 (“R.C. 2969.25 demands strict 
compliance”). 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Tremaine T. Manns, pro se. 
 
James J. Mayer Jr., Richland County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew 
Kvochick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees. 
______________________