Title: State ex rel. Swingle v. Zaleski

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Swingle v. Zaleski, 91 Ohio St.3d 82, 2001-Ohio-288.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. SWINGLE, APPELLANT, v. ZALESKI, CLERK, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Swingle v. Zaleski (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 82.] 
Court of appeals’ dismissal of complaints for writs of mandamus and habeas 
corpus affirmed. 
(No. 00-1781 — Submitted January 31, 2001 — Decided February 28, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 20168. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In 1995, appellant, Daniel Swingle, pleaded guilty to and 
was convicted of felonious sexual penetration and gross sexual imposition and 
was sentenced in 1996 to an aggregate prison term of six to twenty-five years. 
 
In July 2000, Swingle filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for 
Summit County.  Swingle requested a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, 
Summit County Clerk of Courts Diana Zaleski, to file certain pleadings, which he 
claimed she had refused to file.  Swingle also sought a writ of habeas corpus to 
compel his immediate release from prison.  Zaleski filed a motion to dismiss 
Swingle’s complaint because Swingle failed to comply with the R.C. 2969.25(A) 
filing requirements for inmates concerning civil actions or appeals against 
government entities or employees.  Zaleski further contended that some of 
Swingle’s pleadings had in fact been filed and that he had failed to comply with 
the habeas corpus requirements of R.C. 2725.04. 
 
In September 2000, the court of appeals dismissed the complaint because 
Swingle failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A). 
 
In this cause now before the court upon an appeal as of right, Swingle 
asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his complaint for writs of 
mandamus and habeas corpus.  For the following reasons, Swingle’s assertions 
are meritless. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Contrary to Swingle’s contentions, the filing requirements of Sub.H.B. 
No. 455, which includes R.C. 2969.25(A), are not ex post facto legislation.  These 
requirements became effective in 1996 and apply prospectively to actions 
commenced thereafter.  See 146 Ohio Laws, Part III, 5128, 5133.  They neither 
impair vested rights, affect accrued substantive rights, nor impose new or 
additional burdens, duties, obligations, or liabilities for past transactions.  See, 
e.g., State v. Hawkins (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 311, 313-314, 720 N.E.2d 521, 523-
524.  In addition, Swingle does not contend that R.C. 2969.25(A) is inapplicable 
to mandamus and habeas corpus actions.  See State ex rel. Jefferson v. Ohio Adult 
Parole Auth. (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 304, 305, 714 N.E.2d 926, 927. 
 
Further, a writ of mandamus will not issue to compel an act that has 
already been performed.  State ex rel. Taylor v. Leffler (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 178, 
179, 724 N.E.2d 422, 423.  Many of the pleadings mentioned by Swingle have 
already been filed by Zaleski. 
 
Finally, Swingle did not comply with the R.C. 2725.04 requirements for 
his habeas corpus claim, including that he attach a copy of his commitment 
papers.  See Hairston v. Seidner (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 57, 58, 723 N.E.2d 575, 
576. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.1 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Daniel Swingle, pro se. 
__________________ 
                                                          
 
1.  We also deny Swingle’s motion to supplement the record.