[Cite as State ex rel. Thompson v. Lynch, 2016-Ohio-5426.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State of Ohio ex rel. Douglas Thompson, III, : 

 

 Relator, : 

 

v. : No. 16AP-251 

 

Judge Julie Lynch, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

Court of Common Pleas, 

Franklin County Ohio, : 

 

 Respondent. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on August 18, 2016 

 

Douglas Thompson, III, pro se. 

Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Jeffrey C. Rogers, 

for respondent.

 

IN PROCEDENDO OR MANDAMUS 

ON RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

TYACK, J. 

{¶ 1} Douglas Thompson, III filed this action in procedendo, seeking a writ to 

compel Judge Julie Lynch to rule on a number of motions he filed with regard to jail-time 

credit. 

{¶ 2} In accord with Loc.R. 13 of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, the case was 

referred to a magistrate to conduct appropriate proceedings. Counsel for Judge Lynch 

filed a motion asking that this case in procedendo be dismissed. The magistrate, in 

reviewing the documents filed by Thompson, noted that he had not complied with all 

aspects of R.C. 2969.25. The magistrate therefore issued a magistrate's decision, 
No. 16AP-251 2 

appended hereto, which contains detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The 

magistrate's decision included a recommendation that we dismiss the case. 

{¶ 3} Thompson has not filed objections to the magistrate's decision. 

{¶ 4} Upon review of the magistrate's decision, we find no error of law or fact on 

the face of the decision. We, therefore, adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law in 

the magistrate's decision. As a result, we dismiss the case and deny the request for a writ 

of procedendo. 

Writ of procedendo denied; case dismissed. 

KLATT and HORTON, JJ., concur. 

 

 
No. 16AP-251 3 

APPENDIX 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State of Ohio ex rel. Douglas Thompson, III, : 

 

 Relator, : 

 

v. : No. 16AP-251 

 

Judge Julie Lynch, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

Court of Common Pleas, 

Franklin County Ohio, : 

 

 Respondent. : 

 

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

Rendered on May 24, 2016

 

Douglas Thompson, III, pro se. 

Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Jeffrey C. Rogers, 

for respondent.

 

IN PROCEDENDO OR MANDAMUS 

ON RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

{¶ 5} In this original action, relator, Douglas Thompson, III, an inmate of the 

Chillicothe Correctional Institution ("CCI"), requests that a writ of procedendo or 

mandamus issue against respondent, the Honorable Julie M. Lynch, a judge of the 

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. 

Findings of Fact: 

{¶ 6} 1. On April 1, 2016, relator, a CCI inmate, filed this original action against 

respondent. Relator requests that a writ of procedendo or mandamus order respondent 

to rule on motions that he allegedly filed in the common pleas court in case Nos. 12CR-
No. 16AP-251 4 

3210, 12CR-3232, and 13CR-6474. According to the complaint, the motions pertain to 

jail-time credit. 

{¶ 7} 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) of the Tenth District Court 

of Appeals. 

{¶ 8} 3. With his complaint, relator filed an affidavit of indigency which relator 

executed on March 21, 2016. 

{¶ 9} 4. With his complaint, relator filed an affidavit that he is seeking a waiver of 

the prepayment of this court's full filing fees pursuant to R.C. 2969.25(C). 

{¶ 10} 5. 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). 

{¶ 11} 6. While relator states in his complaint that he has filed what he describes 

as "Inmates [sic] Affidavit Of Prior Actions," in fact, no such document or affidavit has 

been filed. See R.C. 2969.25(A). 

{¶ 12} 7. On April 19, 2016, respondent filed a motion to dismiss. With her 

motion to dismiss, respondent attached as exhibits her entries in case Nos. 12CR-3210, 

12CR-3232, and 13CR-6474 that deny relator's motions for jail-time credit filed on 

September 22, 2015. 

{¶ 13} 8. On April 21, 2016, the magistrate issued an order that relator shall file 

his written response and/or brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss no later than May 

10, 2016. 

{¶ 14} 9. Relator has not responded to respondent's motion to dismiss. 

Conclusions of Law:

{¶ 15} It is the magistrate's decision that this court grant in part respondent's 

motion to dismiss. 

{¶ 16} R.C. 2969.25 provides: 

(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. 
No. 16AP-251 5 

* * * 

(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. 

{¶ 17} Here, by failing to file with his complaint a statement that sets forth the 

balance in his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the 

institutional cashier, relator has failed to meet the mandatory filing requirements set forth 

at R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). 

{¶ 18} Also, relator has failed to file with his complaint the affidavit required by 

R.C. 2969.25(A) regarding previous civil actions or appeals of civil actions that he may 

have filed. 

{¶ 19} Thus, this court must dismiss this action. Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio 

St.3d 211, 2003-Ohio-5533; Hawkins v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility, 102 Ohio St.3d 299, 2004-

Ohio-2893. 

{¶ 20} Whether or not respondent has already granted the relief requested in this 

action is not an issue before this court because of relator's failure to meet the mandatory 

requirements of R.C. 2969.25. 

{¶ 21} Accordingly, it is the magistrate's decision that this court grant in part 

respondent's motion to dismiss and that this action be dismissed. 

 /S/ MAGISTRATE 

 KENNETH W. MACKE 
No. 16AP-251 6 

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).