[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Ware v. Pureval , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4024.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 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.

S LIP O PINION N O

. 2020-O HIO -4024

T HE S TATE EX REL

. W ARE , A PPELLANT , v . P UREVAL , C LERK , A PPELLEE . [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Ware v. Pureval , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4024.] Mandamus—A complaint should not be dismissed based on a clerk’s error not caused by party that filed compla int—Court of appeals’ dismissal of complaint for inmate’s alleged failure to file affidavit of prior actions required by R.C. 2969.25(A) re versed and cause remanded. (No. 2020-0162—Submitted May 12, 2020—Decided August 12, 2020.)

A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-190563.

________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Appellant, Kimani Ware, appeals th e dismissal of his complaint for a writ of mandamus against appell ee, Hamilton County Clerk of Cou rts Aftab Pureval, to compel the production of various public records. F or the reason statedS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 below, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and rema nd the case for further proceedings. Background and procedural history {¶ 2} Ware is an inmate at the Trumbull Correctional Institution. On January 23, 2019, he sent ten separate public-records requests by certified mail to Pureval. All ten requests indicat ed that they were “public rec ords request[s] pursuant to R.C. 149.43.” {¶ 3} The office responded separately to each request with the same f orm letter stating that the request w as “subject to approval from t he judge who sentenced [Ware] (or their successor) ac cording to Section 149.43(B)(8) o f the Ohio Revised Code.” On February 22, 2019, Ware wrote back to the office, ar guing that his requests were not subject to R.C. 149.43(B)(8). The office res ponded by sending

back the same form letter. {¶ 4} On October 1, 2019, Ware filed a co mplaint for a writ of mandam us in the First District Court of A ppeals. The court of appeals g ranted Pureval’s motion to dismiss based on Ware’s alleged failure to file an af fidavit of prior actions, as required by R.C. 2969.25(A). Legal analysis {¶ 5} The court of appeals dismissed Wa re’s complaint for noncomplian ce with R.C. 2969.25(A). That statut e requires an inmate who comm ences in the court of appeals a civil action against a government entity or employ ee to 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.” The af fidavit must include (1) a brief description of the nat ure of the civil action or appeal , (2) the case name, case number, and court in whi ch the action or appeal was brought, (3 ) the name of each party to each action or appeal, and (4) the outcome of each act ion or appeal . Id. Compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is mandatory, and the failure t o comply warrantsJanuary Term, 2020

3 dismissal of the action. State v. Henton , 146 Ohio St.3d 9, 2016-Ohio-1518, 50 N.E.3d 553, ¶ 3. {¶ 6} In his motion to dismiss, Pureval alleged that Ware had not fil ed an affidavit of prior civil acti ons as required by R.C. 2969.25(A) . Ware filed a brief in opposition to the motion, cla iming that he did comply with R .C. 2969.25(A). In its decision, the court of appeals concluded that although Ware “insists that he did file an affidavit of prior acti ons, no such affidavit appears i n the record.” {¶ 7} On appeal, Ware has presented his affidavit of prior civil acti ons, which was date-stamped on Oct ober 1, 2019, by the First Distric t. The timestamped affidavit supports Ware’ s allegation that he complied w ith the statute and that the clerk’s office failed to place the affidavit in the co urt file. See Zanesville

v. Rouse , 126 Ohio St.3d 1, 2010-Ohio-2218, 929 N.E.2d 1044, ¶ 8-9 (end orsement by the clerk of the fact and date of the filing is evidence of the filing), vacated in part on reconsideration on other grounds , 126 Ohio St.3d 1227, 2010-Ohio-3754, 933 N.E.2d 260; Sup.R. 44(E) (“ ‘file’ means to deposit a docum ent with a clerk of court, upon the occurrence of which the clerk time or date stam ps and dockets the document”). {¶ 8} This case involves an original action instituted in the court o f appeals, and it appears that the court’s sole basis for dismissing the c omplaint may have been the result of a docketing error. A complaint should not b e dismissed based on a clerk’s error that was not caused by the party that filed the complaint. See

Columber v. Kenton , 111 Ohio St. 211, 145 N.E. 12 (1924) (holding that appeal should not have been dismissed for failure to file a transcript , because error had been made by clerk of the common pleas court, not the appellant ). We therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Ware’s complaint, and we

remand for the court to review in the first instance whether th e affidavit was filed and otherwise complies with t he requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A)

.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 Conclusion {¶ 9} We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Judgment reversed

and cause remanded.

O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F RENCH , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and S TEWART , JJ., concur.

_________________ Kimani Ware, pro se.

_________________