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

ex rel. Davenport v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-3430.] 

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. 2016-OHIO-3430

THE STATE EX REL. DAVENPORT, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF OHIO,

APPELLEE. 

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

may be cited as State ex rel. Davenport v. State, Slip Opinion No. 

2016-Ohio-3430.] 

Mandamus—R.C. 2969.25(C)—Failure to document balance of inmate account for 

six months preceding filing of complaint—Court of appeals’ dismissal of 

complaint affirmed. 

(No. 2015-1578—Submitted March 8, 2016—Decided June 16, 2016.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 14AP-1043. 

______________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Relator-appellant, Carlos Davenport, is an inmate who filed a petition 

for a writ of mandamus in the Tenth District Court of Appeals alleging numerous 

constitutional violations with regard to his conviction and asking for the 

appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the propriety of the criminal 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

proceedings brought against him. He filed an affidavit of indigency in the court of 

appeals that requested a waiver of fees and costs. However, he failed to provide a 

statement of the amount in his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, 

as required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1), and he also failed to comply with other 

requirements of R.C. 2969.25. 

{¶ 2} The court of appeals’ magistrate recommended that the court dismiss 

the case for Davenport’s failure to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2969.25. 

Davenport filed objections, but the court of appeals accepted and adopted the 

magistrate’s decision and recommendation and dismissed the case. Davenport 

appealed. 

{¶ 3} The court of appeals was correct to dismiss the case on the basis 

recommended by the magistrate. “ ‘The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are 

mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to 

dismissal.’ ” Boles v. Knab, 129 Ohio St.3d 222, 2011-Ohio-2859, 951 N.E.2d 389, 

¶ 1, quoting State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 

N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5; State ex rel. McGrath v. McDonnell, 126 Ohio St.3d 511, 2010-

Ohio-4726, 935 N.E.2d 830, ¶ 1. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court of 

appeals. 

{¶ 4} Davenport also filed a motion under S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07(B) for default 

judgment. He argues that because the state failed to file a brief, he is entitled to 

judgment in his favor. However, that rule states: 

If the appellee fails to file a merit brief within the time 

provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.03 or as extended in accordance with 

S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.03, the Supreme Court may accept the appellant’s 

statement of facts and issues as correct and reverse the judgment if 

the appellant’s brief reasonably appears to sustain reversal. 
January Term, 2016 

3

(Emphasis added.) Here, Davenport’s brief does not reasonably appear to sustain 

reversal. Therefore, we deny the motion for default judgment. 

{¶ 5} Finally, Davenport filed a motion for oral argument. Oral argument 

in a direct appeal is discretionary. S.Ct.Prac.R. 17.02(A). None of the factors we 

normally consider in granting a motion for oral argument exists in this case. See 

State ex rel. Manley v. Walsh, 142 Ohio St.3d 384, 2014-Ohio-4563, 31 N.E.3d 

608, ¶ 16, citing Appenzeller v. Miller, 136 Ohio St.3d 378, 2013-Ohio-3719, 996 

N.E.2d 919, ¶ 4, and cases cited therein. We deny the motion for oral argument. 

Judgment affirmed 

and motion denied. 

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

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

 Carlos Davenport, pro se. 

_________________