[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

ex rel. Walker v. Ballinger, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-181.]

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. 2024-OHIO-181

THE STATE EX REL. WALKER, APPELLANT, v. BALLINGER, JUDGE, APPELLEE.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State ex rel. Walker v. Ballinger, Slip Opinion No. 

2024-Ohio-181.]

Mandamus—Inmate’s complaint challenging conviction does not state a claim 

upon which mandamus relief may be granted—Court of appeals’ judgment 

dismissing complaint affirmed.

(No. 2023-0663—Submitted December 12, 2023—Decided January 23, 2024.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-23-09.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Keith Walker, appeals the Third District Court of Appeals’ 

judgment dismissing his complaint for a writ of mandamus under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). 

Walker requested a writ ordering appellee, Marion Municipal Court Judge Teresa 

Ballinger, to vacate a judgment convicting him of domestic violence. We affirm

the Third District’s judgment.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

{¶ 2} Walker was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence in 2020. 

He appeared at a plea hearing by videoconference in May 2020, during the early 

stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Walker alleges that (1) he and his counsel 

appeared for the hearing by video from his counsel’s office and (2) the prosecutor 

and alleged victim appeared by video from the prosecutor’s office. Walker also 

alleges that no municipal-court judge was present for the plea hearing and that the 

prosecutor himself purported to accept Walker’s plea and sentence him. Walker 

received the maximum sentence allowed by law.

{¶ 3} Walker filed in the municipal court a motion to vacate his guilty plea, 

arguing that the plea and the judgment of conviction were “void” because there had 

been no judge present at the hearing and the prosecutor had purported to act in place 

of the judge. Judge Ballinger denied the motion, finding based on her review of 

the record that Walker’s allegations were false. According to Judge Ballinger’s 

findings, an acting judge of the municipal court—not the prosecutor—presided 

over Walker’s plea hearing, accepted his plea, and sentenced him.

{¶ 4} In February 2023, Walker, while incarcerated, filed a complaint for a 

writ of mandamus in the Third District. Walker requested a writ ordering Judge 

Ballinger to vacate his conviction as an “illegal and void judgment.” Judge 

Ballinger filed a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), which Walker opposed. 

In her motion, Judge Ballinger argued that (1) Walker’s complaint did not state a 

claim for relief under any possible theory and (2) Walker had not complied with 

R.C. 2969.25(A), which requires an inmate commencing a civil action in a court of 

appeals to file an affidavit listing each civil action or appeal he had filed in the 

previous five years.

{¶ 5} The court of appeals granted Judge Ballinger’s motion and dismissed 

Walker’s complaint. The court agreed that Walker had failed to submit the affidavit 

required by R.C. 2969.25(A). In addition, the court determined that Walker’s claim 
January Term, 2024

3

was not cognizable in mandamus. Even if the trial court’s acceptance of the plea 

was improper, the court of appeals determined, “such error is a nonjurisdictional 

matter that [Walker] could have raised on direct appeal.” Walker has appealed to 

this court as of right.

II. ANALYSIS

{¶ 6} Walker raises two issues in this appeal. First, he argues that the court 

of appeals erred in dismissing the action based on a failure to comply with R.C. 

2969.25(A)’s affidavit requirement. Second, Walker argues that the court erred in 

holding that he failed to state a cognizable claim in mandamus. Walker’s first 

argument has merit, but his second does not.

A. R.C. 2969.25(A)

{¶ 7} Under R.C. 2969.25(A), an inmate who commences a civil action or 

appeal in a court of appeals against a government entity or employee must file an 

affidavit describing “each civil action or appeal of a civil action that the inmate has 

filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court.” An inmate’s failure 

to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) justifies dismissal of an action seeking an 

extraordinary writ. State ex rel. Wickensimer v. Bartleson, 123 Ohio St.3d 154, 

2009-Ohio-4695, 914 N.E.2d 1045, ¶ 2.

{¶ 8} Walker argued in the court of appeals that he did not have to submit 

an R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit, because he had filed no other civil actions within the 

past five years. The court of appeals rejected this argument, citing State ex rel. 

Williams v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 22AP-662, 2023-

Ohio-850, for the proposition that Walker had to “file a statement with his

complaint declaring that there [were] no prior civil actions to list,” id. at ¶ 15. Given 

the absence of either an affidavit or “any mention in the complaint that he ha[d]

filed no other civil actions or appeals in the preceding five years,” the court of 

appeals held that Walker had failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A).
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

{¶ 9} The court of appeals erred in so holding because the Williams decision

upon which it relied is inconsistent with our precedent. In Wickensimer, this court 

reversed a court of appeals’ judgment dismissing a mandamus petition for a failure 

to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A). Wickensimer at ¶ 1. “The plain language of the 

statute,” we held, “includes no requirement that inmates who have not filed a civil 

action or appeal of a civil action against a government entity or employee in the 

requisite five-year period file a [R.C. 2969.25(A)] affidavit.” Id. at ¶ 3. Similarly, 

the statute does not require a statement that the inmate has filed no such civil action 

or appeal. Id. at ¶ 5. The court of appeals erred in requiring more from Walker 

than the statute does.

{¶ 10} Judge Ballinger suggests that the court of appeals’ finding of

noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is nonetheless correct because Walker did 

not identify State v. Walker, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-20-46, an appeal commenced 

by him that was later dismissed. Judge Ballinger attaches to her merit brief a copy 

of the court of appeals’ judgment entry dismissing that appeal on April 5, 2021. 

However, “[a] reviewing court generally may not add matter to the record before it 

and then decide the appeal on the basis of the new matter.” State ex rel. Harris v. 

Turner, 160 Ohio St.3d 506, 2020-Ohio-2901, 159 N.E.3d 1121, ¶ 16. And in any 

event, it is not clear whether that case was an appeal in a criminal or civil case, and

R.C. 2969.25(A) requires disclosure of only civil actions or appeals an inmate has 

filed in the previous five years.

B. Mandamus

{¶ 11} We review de novo a court of appeals’ dismissal of a mandamus 

complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). State ex rel. McKinney v. Schmenk, 152 Ohio 

St.3d 70, 2017-Ohio-9183, 92 N.E.3d 871, ¶ 8. To obtain a writ of mandamus, 

Walker must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty 

on the part of Judge Ballinger to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in 

the ordinary course of the law. Id. at ¶ 9. The court of appeals correctly dismissed 
January Term, 2024

5

the action under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) if, after presuming all factual allegations in the 

complaint to be true and drawing all reasonable inferences in Walker’s favor, it 

appears beyond doubt that he could prove no set of facts entitling him to a writ of 

mandamus. Id. at ¶ 8.

{¶ 12} Walker does not dispute that the municipal court had subject-matter 

jurisdiction over his criminal case and personal jurisdiction over him. Rather, his 

theory of relief is that his misdemeanor domestic-violence conviction is void 

because the municipal court did not, in fact, accept his plea and enter judgment. 

This is so, Walker posits, because no judge was present when he entered his plea 

and the prosecutor himself purported to find Walker guilty and sentence him. But 

this theory does not state a valid claim for relief in mandamus.

{¶ 13} Walker is essentially arguing that his guilty plea is invalid, which is 

not a claim cognizable in mandamus. See State ex rel. Mitchell v. Pittman, 169 

Ohio St.3d 357, 2022-Ohio-2542, 204 N.E.3d 534, ¶ 15. At most, Walker’s 

argument raises a nonjurisdictional defect for which he had an adequate remedy in 

the ordinary course of the law. See Pollock v. Morris, 35 Ohio St.3d 117, 518 

N.E.2d 1205 (1988) (validity of a guilty plea is a nonjurisdictional matter that 

should be raised on appeal or in postconviction proceedings). The court of appeals 

was therefore correct to dismiss Walker’s complaint for failing to state a claim upon 

which mandamus relief could be granted.

III. CONCLUSION

{¶ 14} Walker’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which mandamus 

relief could be granted. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Third District 

Court of Appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, 

and DETERS, JJ., concur.

_________________
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

Keith Walker, pro se.

Mark A. Russell, Marion Law Director, and Kathryn A. McCarthy, 

Assistant Law Director, for appellee.

_________________