[Cite as Banks v. Rocco, 2013-Ohio-4048.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 100076 

JUAN BANKS 

RELATOR 

vs. 

ANDREA ROCCO 

RESPONDENT 

JUDGMENT: 

WRIT DISMISSED 

Writ of Mandamus 

Motion No. 466842 

Order No. 467724 

RELEASE DATE: September 16, 2013 
FOR RELATOR

Juan Banks, pro se 

Inmate No. 603-214 

878 Coitsville-Hubbard Road 

Youngstown, Ohio 44505 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: James E. Moss 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

8th Floor Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.: 

{¶1} On July 2, 2013, the relator, Juan Banks, commenced this mandamus action 

against the respondent, Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts Gerald Fuerst,1

 to compel the 

clerk to send him records relating to his criminal conviction, including (1) all criminal 

complaints, (2) all original police statements, (3) all witness statements, (4) all 

summonses, (5) all subpoenas, (6) all affidavits, (7) all jurats, (8) the verdict form, (9) 

jury notes, (10) judgment entries, and (11) all trial and pretrial transcripts.2

 On July 23, 

2013, the respondent clerk filed a motion to dismiss. Banks never filed a response. 

For the following reasons, this court grants the motion to dismiss and dismisses the 

application for a writ of mandamus. 

{¶2} Banks did not fulfill a statutory prerequisite for obtaining records from his 

criminal case. The Ohio Public Records statute, R.C. 149.43(B)(8), provides that a 

person responsible for public records is not required to permit a person who is 

incarcerated pursuant to a criminal conviction to inspect or obtain copies of any public 

records concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution unless the judge who imposed 

the sentence or the judge’s successor in office finds that the information sought in the 

public records is necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim of the person. 

 1

 In a prior entry, we recognized that Andrea Rocco has succeeded Gerald E. Fuerst as Clerk 

of Courts and instructed the clerk to substitute Andrea Rocco as the respondent and to change the 

caption accordingly. See Civ.R. 25(D)(1). 

2

 In State v. Banks, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-546456, a jury found Banks guilty of murder with 

firearm specifications. 
 Although Banks states in his complaint that the records are sought to support habeas 

corpus petitions, he does not aver, much less establish, that he has obtained the required 

permission from the judge. Accordingly, the respondent has no duty to provide access 

or copies to Banks. 

{¶3} Moreover, a mandamus petition, especially one filed by a prisoner, must 

have certain formal elements in order to be effective and not subject to summary 

dismissal. R.C. 2731.04 requires that an application for a writ of mandamus “must be by 

petition, in the name of the state on the relation of the person applying.” In other words, 

a petitioner must begin his mandamus caption with “State ex rel.” Additionally, Civ.R. 

10(A) requires that the caption include the addresses of all the parties. 

{¶4} When an inmate commences a civil action or appeal against a government 

entity or employee, R.C. 2969.25(A) requires 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. However, the Supreme Court of Ohio has indicated that the affidavit need 

not be filed, if the inmate has not commenced any such actions. State ex rel. 

Wickensimer v. Bartleson, 123 Ohio St.3d 154, 2009-Ohio-4695, 914 N.E.2d 1045. 

Similarly, pursuant to R.C. 2969.25(C), if an inmate seeks waiver of the filing fee, the 

poverty affidavit must contain a certified statement from the prison cashier setting forth 

the balance in the inmate’s private account for each of the preceding six months. The 

failure to comply with this statute subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal. Indeed, 

belated attempts to cure these deficiencies may be ineffective. State ex rel. Manns v. 

Henson, 119 Ohio St.3d 348, 2008-Ohio-4478, 894 N.E.2d 47. 
{¶5} For writ actions filed in the Eighth District, Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) 

requires the petitioner to support the complaint with an affidavit “specifying the details 

of the claim.” A “swear to everything” affidavit is insufficient to fulfill this 

requirement. State ex rel. Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio 

St.3d 124, 2009-Ohio-4688, 914 N.E.2d 402. This court notes that Banks’s petition did 

not comply with many, if not all, of these requirements. Potential petitioners are well 

advised to comply with the special rules of writ pleading to avoid summary dismissal. 

{¶6} Accordingly, this court grants the respondent’s motion to dismiss and 

dismisses the application for a writ of mandamus. Relator to pay costs. This court 

directs the clerk of court to serve all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry 

upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B). 

{¶7} Writ dismissed. 

 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE 

MELODY J. STEWART, A.J., and 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR