[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Bey v. Loomis , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2066.]

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

. 2021-O HIO -2066

T HE S TATE EX REL

. B EY , A PPELLANT , v . L OOMIS , A PPELLEE

. [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Bey v. Loomis , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2066.] Mandamus—Inmate failed to comply with filing requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A)— Court of appeals’ dismis sal of petition affirmed. (No. 2020-1050—Submitted Marc h 2, 2021—Decided June 23, 2021.)

A PPEAL from the Court of Appeal s for Trumbull County, No. 2019-T-0035, 2020-Ohio-3933.

________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Appellant, Vincent El Alan Parker Bey, appeals the judgment of the Eleventh District Court of Appeal s dismissing his complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel the produc tion of public records. We affirm

. Background {¶ 2} Bey is an inmate at the Trumbull Correctional Institution (“TCI ”). In March 2019, Bey sent a public-records request to respondent, Ju lie Loomis, who isS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 responsible for public-records requests at TCI. Loomis provide d some, but not all, of the requested records. {¶ 3} In June 2019, Bey filed an original action in the Eleventh Dist rict Court of Appeals seeking to compe l Loomis to make the remaining requested records available for his inspection. Loomis filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment , arguing that the complaint w as moot because she had already fully responded to the request. Loomis attache d to her motion a signed “Declaration” describing her responses to Bey’s requests . Based on the declaration, the court of appeal s concluded that Loomis had com plied with Bey’s request and dismissed the action as moot. 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2019-T-0035, 2019-Ohio-3446, ¶ 2. {¶ 4} We reversed, holding that the in formation in Loomis’s declarati on did not establish mootness with respect to the requested records th at were not provided to Bey. 160 Ohio St.3d 192, 2020-Ohio-1463, 155 N.E.3d 828, ¶ 8. We remanded the case for further proceedings. Id . at ¶ 1, 9. {¶ 5} On remand, the court of appeals issued an alternative writ, set ting deadlines for the filing of Loomis’s answer and any dispositive motions. On June 2, 2020, Loomis filed a motion to dismiss, this time arguing th at Bey had failed to file a complete affidavit of p rior civil actions as required by R.C. 2969.25. Bey opposed the motion, arguing that it should be denied as imprope r because it did not “state any of the [seven] defens es” identified in Civ.R. 12 and also suggesting that if Loomis was relying on evidence outside the complaint, the mo tion should be

converted into a motion f or summary judgment. {¶ 6} The court of appeals granted the motion and dismissed the compl aint based on Bey’s failure to “strictly comply” with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A). 2020-Ohio-3933, ¶ 16-18. Bey appealed a seco nd time.January Term, 2021

3 Legal analysis {¶ 7} An inmate who commences a civil action against a government ent ity or employee in a court of common pleas, court of appeals, count y court, or municipal court must file an af fidavit describing “each civil a ction or appeal of a

civil action that the inmate has filed in the previous five yea rs in any state or federal court.” R.C. 2969.25(A); see also R.C. 2969.21(B)(1). The affidavit must include (1) a brief description of the nature of each civil action or a ppeal, (2) the case name, case number, and the court in which each civil action or appeal was brought, (3) the name of each party, and (4) the outcome of each civil actio n or appeal. R.C. 2969.25(A)(1) through (4). “Comp liance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is mandatory, and failure to comply will warrant dismissal.” State v. Henton , 146 Ohio St.3d 9, 2016- Ohio-1518, 50 N.E.3d 553, ¶ 3. {¶ 8} The court of appeals dismissed Bey’s complaint for noncomplianc e with R.C. 2969.25(A), finding that his affidavit 1 listed six cases that he had filed during the previous five years but failed to describe the natur e of each case, identify the parties thereto, or provide the outcome of each case. 2020 -Ohio-3933 at ¶ 16. Indeed, five of the six cases Bey identified did not even inclu de a case name. Id

. {¶ 9} On appeal, Bey does not challenge these conclusions or defend t he adequacy of his affidavit. He c ontends that his failure to com ply with R.C. 2969.25(A) is not a proper basis for dismissal under Civ.R. 12( B)(6), and further, even if it were, Loomis failed to specifically identify Civ.R. 12(B)(6) as the basis for her motion to dismiss. Additionally, Bey asserts that the court of appeals should have converted Loomis’s motion to a motion for summary judgment and given him

notice of that conversion. {¶ 10} Dismissal is the appropriate dis position of an inmate’s complai nt that lacks a required affidavit. State ex rel. Ware v. Pureval , 160 Ohio St.3d 387,

1. Bey’s statement of prior civil actions and appeals appears i n paragraph 1 of his affidavit, which is attached to his complaint behind Exhibit F.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 2020-Ohio-4024, 157 N.E.3d 714, ¶ 5. Because Bey filed his com plaint in the court of appeals, he was required to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A). See State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene , 155 Ohio St.3d 216, 2018-Ohio-4200, 120 N.E.3d 779, ¶ 8 (explaining that the requirements of R.C. 2969. 25 apply to “a civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee” filed in the court of appeals but not to actions f iled in the supreme court). {¶ 11} Bey’s sole legal claim—that the court of appeals should have converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgm ent, given him notice of that action, and disposed of the motion pursuant to C iv.R. 56—has no merit. Civ.R. 12(B) requires that a motion to dismiss for fail ure to state a claim be treated as a motion for summary judgment when the motion “prese nts matters outside the pleading and such ma tters are not excluded by the c ourt.” Conversion is not required when the motion can be decided without referenc e to matters beyond the pleadings. Collins v. Natl. City Bank , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19884, 2003- Ohio-6893, ¶ 10. {¶ 12} The absence of a qualifying affidavit from Bey’s complaint is apparent from the pleadings. Bey has identified no matters out side the pleadings that would require conversion to a motion for summary judgment. {¶ 13} For these reasons, we affirm th e judgment of the court of appea ls. Judgment affirmed.

O’C ONNOR , C.J., and F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , S TEWART , and

B RUNNER , JJ., concur.

K ENNEDY , J., concurs in judgment only.

_________________ Vincent El Alan Parker Bey, pro se. Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Jared S. Yee and Mark W. Altie r, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

_________________