[Cite as State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, 2013-Ohio-5779.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State of Ohio ex rel. David Hall, : 

 Relator, : 

v. : No. 13AP-588 

Gary Mohr, Director et al., : (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation 

[and Correction], : 

 Respondents. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on December 30, 2013 

 

David Hall, pro se. 

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Mindy Worly, for 

respondents. 

 

IN MANDAMUS 

ON OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION 

SADLER, J. 

{¶ 1} Relator, David Hall, an inmate of the North Central Correctional Complex 

("NCCC"), commenced this original action requesting a writ of mandamus ordering 

respondent, Gary Mohr, director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and 

Correction, to grant relator a hearing and release from incarceration. 

I. BACKGROUND 

{¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth Appellate District, this 

matter was referred to a magistrate who issued a decision, including findings of fact and 

conclusions of law, which is appended hereto. The magistrate determined that, at the 
No. 13AP-588 2 

time relator filed his complaint, he failed to file an affidavit of prior civil actions, as 

required by R.C. 2969.25(A), and failed to attach a certified copy of the cashier's 

statement, as required by R.C. 2969.25(C). As compliance with the provisions of R.C. 

2969.25 is mandatory, the magistrate recommended that this court sua sponte dismiss 

this action. 

II. RELATOR'S OBJECTIONS 

{¶ 3} Relator filed objections to the magistrate's decision asserting he submitted 

an incorrect affidavit with his complaint seeking mandamus relief. Relator also filed a 

notice of filing an affidavit of prior actions and affidavit of grievance system.

III. DISCUSSION

{¶ 4} This court has previously noted: "It is well-settled that compliance with the 

requirements of R.C. 2969.25 is mandatory, and that the failure to comply with R.C. 

2969.25 requires dismissal of the action." State ex rel. Evans v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 

10th Dist. No. 10AP-730, 2011-Ohio-2871, ¶ 4, citing State ex rel. Washington v. Ohio 

Adult Parole Auth., 87 Ohio St.3d 258 (1999). "Further, 'the affidavit required by R.C. 

2969.25(A) must be filed at the time an inmate commences the civil action or appeal 

[and] [t]he belated attempt to file the required affidavit does not excuse noncompliance.' " 

State ex rel. Wilson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 10th Dist. No. 11AP-102, 2011-Ohio-4657, 

¶ 7, quoting Evans at ¶ 4, citing Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211, 2003-Ohio-5533, 

¶ 9; Hawkins v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility, 102 Ohio St.3d 299, 2004-Ohio-2893, ¶ 5 

(appellant's "belated attempts to file the required affidavit do not excuse his 

noncompliance"). See also Hall v. Collins, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-73, 2010-Ohio-3845, ¶ 10 

(documents required under R.C. 2969.25 "must be filed at the time the complaint is filed," 

and plaintiff's failure to comply with the statutory requirements "when he filed his 

complaint subjects his complaint to dismissal"). In the instant action, because relator 

"failed to file the required affidavits at the commencement of his action," his objections 

are without merit and are overruled. Evans at ¶ 4. 

IV. RELATOR'S MOTIONS 

{¶ 5} On October 24, 2013, relator filed a motion for default judgment and 

motion for judgment on the pleadings. Given our disposition of relator's objections to the 
No. 13AP-588 3 

magistrate's decision and our agreement with the magistrate that this matter must be 

dismissed, relator's motions are rendered moot and are hereby denied as such. 

V. CONCLUSION 

{¶ 6} Upon review of the magistrate's decision, an independent review of the 

record, and due consideration of relator's objections, we find the magistrate has properly 

stated the pertinent facts and applied the appropriate law. Therefore, we overrule 

relator's objections to the magistrate's decision and adopt the magistrate's decision as our 

own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. In 

accordance with the magistrate's decision, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is sua 

sponte dismissed. 

Motions denied; 

objections overruled, and 

petition for writ of mandamus 

sua sponte dismissed. 

DORRIAN and McCORMAC, JJ., concur. 

McCORMAC, J., retired, formerly of the Tenth Appellate 

District, assigned to active duty under authority of the Ohio 

Constitution, Article IV, Section 6(C). 

_____________________________ 
No. 13AP-588 4 

A P P E N D I X

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State of Ohio ex rel. : 

David Hall, 

 : 

 Relator, No. 13AP-588 

 : 

v. (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 : 

Gary Mohr, Director, et al., 

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation : 

[and Correction], 

 : 

 Respondent. 

 : 

 

M A G I S T R A T E ' S D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on July 18, 2013 

 

David Hall, pro se. 

 

IN MANDAMUS 

ON SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL 

{¶ 7} In this original action, relator, David Hall, an inmate of the North Central 

Correctional Complex ("NCCC") requests that a writ of mandamus issue against 

respondent, Gary Mohr, the director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and 

Correction. 

Findings of Fact: 

{¶ 8} 1. On July 9, 2013, relator, an NCCC inmate, filed this original action 

against respondent. 

{¶ 9} 2. Relator has not deposited with the clerk of this court the monetary sum 

required as security for the payment of costs. See Loc.R.13(B). 
No. 13AP-588 5 

{¶ 10} 3. Relator has not filed an affidavit that he is seeking a waiver of prepayment of this court's full filing fees nor has he filed an affidavit of indigency pursuant 

to R.C. 2969.25(C). 

{¶ 11} 4. Relator has not filed a statement that sets forth the balance in his 

inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional 

cashier pursuant to R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). 

{¶ 12} 5. Relator has not filed an affidavit, pursuant to R.C. 2969.25(A) that 

contains a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action that relator has filed 

in the previous five years in any state or federal court. 

Conclusions of Law: 

{¶ 13} It is the magistrate's decision that this court sua sponte dismiss this action. 

R.C. 2969.25 states: 

(A) At the time that an inmate commences a civil action or 

appeal against a government entity or employee, the inmate 

shall file with the court an affidavit that contains a 

description of 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. 

* * * 

(C) If an inmate who files a civil action or appeal against a 

government entity or employee seeks a waiver of the 

prepayment of the full filing fees assessed by the court in 

which the action or appeal is filed, the inmate shall file with 

the complaint or notice of appeal an affidavit that the inmate 

is seeking a waiver of the prepayment of the court's full filing 

fees and an affidavit of indigency. The affidavit of waiver and 

the affidavit of indigency shall contain all of the following: 

(1) A statement that sets forth the balance in the inmate 

account of the inmate for each of the preceding six months, 

as certified by the institutional cashier; 

(2) A statement that sets forth all other cash and things of 

value owned by the inmate at that time. 

{¶ 14} Relator's failure to meet the mandatory filing requirements of R.C. 

2969.25(A) requires dismissal of this action. Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211, 
No. 13AP-588 6 

2003-Ohio-5533; Hawkins v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility, 102 Ohio St.3d 299, 2004-Ohio2893. 

{¶ 15} Accordingly, it is the magistrate's decision that this court sua sponte dismiss 

this action. 

 /S/ MAGISTRATE 

 KENNETH W. MACKE 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES 

Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) provides that a party shall not assign 

as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding 

or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as 

a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 

53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and specifically 

objects to that factual finding or legal conclusion as required 

by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).