[Cite as State ex rel. Sultaana v. Bova, 2014-Ohio-1737.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 100875 

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. 

HAKEEM SULTAANA

RELATOR 

vs. 

FRANK BOVA

RESPONDENT 

JUDGMENT: 

WRIT DENIED 

Writ of Mandamus 

Motion Nos. 473168 and 473403 

Order No. 473890 

RELEASED DATE: April 18, 2014 

-i-
RELATOR

Hakeem Sultaana 

No. 0171385 

P.O. Box 5600 

Cleveland, Ohio 44101 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: James E. Moss 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

9th Floor Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.: 

{¶1} Hakeem Sultaana (“Sultaana”) has filed an application for a writ of 

mandamus. Sultaana seeks an order from this court that requires respondent, Cuyahoga 

County Sheriff Frank Bova (“Bova”), to comply with the provisions of a court order 

entered in Cuyahoga C.P. Case No. CR-12-568418-A that granted Sultaana one hour 

computer access daily for legal research only. Respondent has moved for summary 

judgment, which Sultaana has opposed. Sultaana has also moved for summary judgment. 

Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and relator’s motion for summary 

judgment is denied for the reasons that follow. 

{¶2} Sultaana’s application is defective in several respects that would warrant its 

dismissal. See R.C. 2969.25(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.”), Loc.App.R. 45 

(“All complaints must contain the specific statements of fact upon which the claim of 

illegality is based and must be supported by an affidavit from the plaintiff or relator 

specifying the details of the claim. Absent such detail and attachment, the complaint is 

subject to dismissal.”); Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 139, 

2005-Ohio-5795, 841 N.E.2d 766; Barry v. Galvin, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 

 85990, 2005-Ohio-2324, ¶ 2, citing Allen v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen Cty., 173 
Ohio St. 226, 181 N.E.2d 270 (1962). Sultaana did not fully comply with the foregoing 

requirements. 

{¶3} Sultaana’s affidavit specifying the details of his claim and his purported R.C. 

2969.25(A) affidavit describing his civil actions in the past five years, are not notarized. 

His description of his civil actions is wholly insufficient because it provides only partial 

citations, no case numbers, and fails to identify the court in which the civil action or 

appeal was brought in two of the three actions he listed. He also failed to identify the 

outcome of the actions or appeals and did not describe the nature of any of the actions or 

appeals. 

{¶4} Sultaana’s affidavit of indigency is also not notarized, and he has not filed 

the required certified cost statement that sets forth the balance in his inmate account for 

each of the preceding six months. R.C. 2969.25(C). His unsworn statement that “it’s hard 

to procure” an account statement does not relieve him of his obligation to comply with the 

mandated statutory procedural requirements. 

{¶5} R.C. 2731.04 requires an application for writ of mandamus to be verified. In 

Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 2001-Ohio-49, 744 N.E.2d 763, the Supreme Court of 

Ohio held, “‘Verification’ means a ‘formal declaration made in the presence of an 

authorized officer, such as a notary public, by which one swears to the truth of the 

statement in the document.’ Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (7 Ed.1999) 1556 * * *.” Id. 

(reversing the court of appeal’s granting of the writ because the procedurally defective 

petition should have been summarily dismissed); see also Griffin v. McFaul, 116 Ohio 
St.3d 30, 2007-Ohio-5506, 876 N.E.2d 527, ¶ 4 (affirming denial of writ of habeas corpus 

for reasons including that the “purported verification was ineffective because it was not 

notarized.”) Sultaana’s application is not verified. 

{¶6} Although Sultaana indicates that respondent does not offer notary services, 

this does not exempt him from procedural compliance with the law that requires these 

affidavits to be notarized. State ex rel. Campbell v. Russo, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95463, 

2010-Ohio-4369, ¶ 11 (holding petitioner is not exempt from the requirement of providing 

notarized affidavits on grounds that the county jail does not provide notary services). 

{¶7} Any one of these pleading deficiencies would warrant dismissal. In addition, 

Sultaana has not satisfied the requirements necessary for the issuance of a writ. Sultaana 

must establish that: (1) Sultaana has a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) Bova has 

a clear legal duty to perform the requested relief, and (3) there must be no adequate 

remedy at law. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is to be exercised with 

caution. “A writ of mandamus will not be granted if the relator has a plain and adequate 

remedy in the ordinary course of law.” State ex rel. Weaver v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 

116 Ohio St.3d 340, 2007-Ohio-6435, 879 N.E.2d 191 (affirming the dismissal of action 

for writ of mandamus because inmate had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of 

law through the filing of a motion for contempt); see also State ex rel. Ridenour v. 

Hageman, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-858, 2007-Ohio-5863, ¶ 5 (holding common 

pleas court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a motion to enforce an order issued by that court). 

“The use of extraordinary relief to enforce a judgment is not widespread, because of the 
availability of other means of enforcement, e.g., motion for contempt.” Dzina v. 

Celebrezze, 108 Ohio St.3d 385, 2006-Ohio-1195, 843 N.E.2d 1202, ¶ 14. Sultaana has an 

adequate remedy at law and, therefore, mandamus is inappropriate. Further, Sultaana has 

not established that respondent has a clear legal duty to provide continued daily access to 

the computer because there is a dispute as to whether Sultaana violated the court order 

himself by utilizing the computer for reasons beyond legal research. Specifically, it was 

averred that “Sultaana accessed the computer to be used for legal research in violation of 

the rules and regulations of the CCCC and was consequently prohibited from using the 

computer.” 

{¶8} For all of the foregoing reasons, respondent’s motion for summary judgment 

is granted, relator’s motion for summary judgment is denied. Relator to pay costs. The 

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

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

{¶9} Writ denied. 

 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE 

LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR