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

State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-3735.] 

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. 2014-OHIO-3735 

THE STATE EX REL. HALL, APPELLANT, v. MOHR, DIR., APPELLEE. 

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

may be cited as State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-3735.] 

Mandamus—R.C. 2969.25—Civil action by inmate against governmental entity or 

employee—Failure to file affidavit with complaint describing each civil 

action or appeal of a civil action filed in the previous five years in any 

state or federal court—Defect cannot be cured by later filing—Court of 

appeals’ dismissal of complaint affirmed. 

(No. 2014-0070—Submitted August 20, 2014—Decided September 2, 2014.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 13AP-588, 

2013-Ohio-5779. 

____________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the Tenth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of 

appellant David Hall’s complaint in mandamus. Hall filed the action in the Tenth 

District Court of Appeals seeking an order compelling appellee, Gary Mohr, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Director of Rehabilitation and Correction, to hold an immediate hearing and grant 

Hall release from incarceration. Except for several exhibits, the only attachment 

to the original complaint was an affidavit of verity attesting to Hall’s competency 

and the truthfulness of the statements in the complaint and the attached exhibits. 

{¶ 2} The matter was referred to a magistrate, who determined that Hall 

failed to file with his complaint several of the documents required by R.C. 

2969.25. Specifically, he failed to file an affidavit of prior civil actions, required 

by R.C. 2969.25(A), an affidavit seeking prepayment of the court’s filing fees, an 

affidavit of indigence, and a certified copy of the institutional cashier’s statement 

setting forth the balance in his inmate account, all of which are required by R.C. 

2969.25(C). 2013-Ohio-5779, ¶ 10-12. The magistrate concluded that 

compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is mandatory and recommended dismissal. Id.

at ¶ 14. Hall objected and filed an affidavit of prior actions, an affidavit of 

indigence, and an affidavit indicating that he had not filed a grievance in an 

apparent effort to correct the deficiencies in his original pleadings. 

{¶ 3} The court of appeals adopted the magistrate’s decision, finding that 

Hall’s belated attempt to cure the defects in his complaint were to no avail, 

because the documents required by R.C. 2969.25 must be filed with the 

complaint. Id. at ¶ 4. 

{¶ 4} We affirm. The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory and 

failure to comply with them requires dismissal of an inmate’s complaint. State ex 

rel. Washington v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 87 Ohio St.3d 258, 259, 719 N.E.2d 

544 (1999), citing State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 

422, 696 N.E.2d 594 (1998). As held by the court of appeals, the affidavit 

required by R.C. 2696.25(A) must be filed at the time the complaint is filed, and 

an inmate may not cure the defect by later filings. Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio 

St.3d 211, 2003-Ohio-5533, 797 N.E.2d 982, ¶ 9 (an inmate’s “belated attempt to 

file the required affidavit does not excuse his noncompliance. See R.C. 
January Term, 2014 

3 

2969.25(A), which requires that the affidavit be filed ‘[a]t the time that an inmate 

commences a civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee.’ ” 

[emphasis sic]). 

{¶ 5} Nor is this a dismissal on the merits requiring prior notice, as 

asserted by Hall. Because the failure to comply with the mandatory requirements 

of R.C. 2969.25 cannot be cured, prior notice of the dismissal would have 

afforded Hall no recourse. 

{¶ 6} Therefore, the court of appeals was correct to dismiss Hall’s 

complaint in mandamus, and we affirm. 

Judgment affirmed. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

____________________ 

 David Hall, pro se. 

 Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Mindy Worly, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee. 

__________________________