Title: State ex rel. White v. Mack

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. White v. Mack , 93 Ohio St.3d 572, 2001-Ohio-
1610] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. WHITE, APPELLANT, v. MACK ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. White v. Mack (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 572.] 
Mandamus sought to compel Lima Correctional Institution officers to comply 
with Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-31 by responding to a filed grievance and 
setting up a monitoring system for communications placed in the mail 
box for institutional mail — Dismissal of complaint affirmed. 
(No. 01-678 — Submitted September 18, 2001 — Decided November 14, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No. CA010009. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In January 2001, appellant, Michael Turner White, an 
inmate at the Lima Correctional Institution, filed a complaint in the Court of 
Appeals for Allen County for a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, certain 
prison correctional officers, to comply with Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-31 by 
responding to a filed grievance and by setting up a monitoring system for 
communications placed in the mail box for institutional mail.  White did not file 
the affidavit required of inmates by R.C. 2969.25(A) describing each civil action 
or appeal of a civil action that he had filed in the previous five years in any state 
or federal court.  Appellees filed a motion to dismiss. 
 
In March 2001, the court of appeals granted appellees’ motion and 
dismissed White’s complaint.  The court also ordered White to pay the costs of 
the action. 
 
In his appeal of right, White claims that the court of appeals erred in 
dismissing his mandamus action and in ordering him to pay the costs of the action 
in anything but gold and silver.  White’s claims are meritless. 
 
As the court of appeals correctly held, White, who does not contend that 
R.C. 2969.25 is inapplicable to mandamus actions, did not comply with the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
mandatory requirements of that statute in commencing this action.  See State ex 
rel. Washington v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 258, 259, 719 
N.E.2d 544, 545; State ex rel. Swingle v. Zaleski (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 82, 83, 
742 N.E.2d 130, 131. 
 
Furthermore, White failed to specify the nature or time of any grievance 
with the requisite particularity.  See State ex rel. Adkins v. Ohio Adult Parole 
Auth. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 171, 173, 694 N.E.2d 958, 960 (Inmates are required 
to plead specific facts rather than unsupported conclusions). 
 
Finally, contrary to White’s claims on appeal, the court of appeals did not 
abuse its discretion in assessing court costs.  White asserts that the United States 
Constitution prohibits the court’s assessment of costs that are payable in money 
other than gold or silver coins.  But the provision of Section 10, Article I of the 
United States Constitution that “[n]o state shall * * * make any Thing but gold 
and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts” is not a directive to states to use 
only gold or silver coins; it is merely a restriction preventing states from 
establishing their own legal tender other than gold or silver coins.  See Baird v. 
Cty. Assessors of Salt Lake & Utah Ctys. (Utah 1989), 779 P.2d 676, 680.  This 
constitutional provision does not prevent the federal government from making the 
treasury notes of the United States the legal tender of the country.  Id.; Gehring v. 
All Members of Montana 1993 Legislature (1995), 269 Mont. 373, 378, 889 P.2d 
1164, 1166 (“The legality of paper money has consistently been upheld”).  And 
White’s reliance on former Section 371, Title 31, U.S.Code is misplaced because 
Section 5103, Title 31, U.S.Code specifies that “United States coins and currency 
(including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks 
and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.” 
See, e.g., Allnutt v. Maryland (1984), 59 Md.App. 694, 700, 478 A.2d 321, 324. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
January Term, 2001 
3 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Michael Turner White, pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Dawn M. Tarka, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________