[Cite as State ex rel. Robinson v. Chambers-Smith, 2024-Ohio-2347.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State ex rel. Jackie N. Robinson, :

Relator, :

No. 24AP-99

v. :

(REGULAR CALENDAR)

Annette Chambers-Smith, Director et al., :

Respondents. :

 

D E C I S I O N

Rendered on June 18, 2024

On brief: Jackie N. Robinson, pro se. 

On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, Marcy Vonderwell,

and Matthew Convery, for respondents.

IN MANDAMUS

ON OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE’S DECISION

LUPER SCHUSTER, J.

{¶ 1} Relator, Jackie N. Robinson, initiated this original action seeking a writ of 

mandamus ordering respondents, Annette Chambers-Smith and the Ohio Bureau of 

Sentence Computation (“BSC”), to provide certain records, correct allegedly inaccurate 

information in Robinson’s criminal and institutional records, and release him from the 

custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”). ChambersSmith filed a motion to dismiss and for reasonable attorney fees.

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

Appeals, this court referred the matter to a magistrate. The magistrate issued the 

appended decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law. The magistrate 

determined that because Robinson failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of 
No. 24AP-99 2

R.C. 2969.25 at the time of filing his complaint, the action must be dismissed. Thus, the 

magistrate recommends this court sua sponte dismiss Robinson’s request for a writ of 

mandamus.

{¶ 3} Robinson filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. Therefore, we must 

independently review the decision to ascertain whether the “magistrate has properly 

determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the law.” Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d). 

Robinson does not challenge the magistrate’s recitation of the pertinent facts; however, 

Robinson objects to the magistrate’s conclusion that this court must dismiss the action for 

failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25.

{¶ 4} Through his objections, Robinson does not assert he submitted documents 

that would be compliant with R.C. 2969.25(A), (C), and (C)(1). Instead, he argues more 

generally his claim should be allowed to continue despite his non-compliance with R.C. 

2969.25. As the magistrate correctly notes, however, strict compliance with the 

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

warrants dismissal. State ex rel. Swanson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 156 Ohio St.3d 

408, 2019-Ohio-1271, ¶ 6; State ex rel. Walker v. Bolin, 10th Dist. No. 23AP-156, 2024-

Ohio-20, ¶ 4 (“[s]ubstantial compliance with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C) is not 

sufficient,” and the requirements “must be met at the time of the filing of the complaint”). 

Further, the reason for the relator’s non-compliance is not considered in determining the 

appropriateness of dismissal for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25. Walker at ¶ 5 (noting 

neither R.C. 2969.25 nor any case law provides for an exception based on the reason for 

the non-compliance). It is undisputed Robinson did not comply with the requirements of 

R.C. 2969.25, and we agree with the magistrate that dismissal of the complaint is 

appropriate.

{¶ 5} To the extent Robinson attempts to assert, through his objections to the 

magistrate’s decision, new claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1985, access 

to courts, discrimination, and equal protection, we note Robinson did not assert any of 

these claims in his complaint for a writ of mandamus. A party cannot raise new claims in 

its objections to the magistrate’s decision when those claims were not present in the 

complaint. State ex rel. Durbin v. Indus. Comm., 10th Dist. No. 10AP-712, 2012-Ohio664, ¶ 10. 
No. 24AP-99 3

{¶ 6} Following our independent review of the record, pursuant to Civ.R. 53, we 

find the magistrate has properly discerned the relevant facts and appropriately applied the 

law. We therefore overrule Robinson’s objections to the magistrate’s decision and adopt 

that decision as our own, including findings of fact and conclusions of law contained 

therein. In accordance with the magistrate’s decision, we sua sponte dismiss Robinson’s 

petition for a writ of mandamus, and we find Chambers-Smith’s motion to dismiss and 

motion for attorney fees are moot.

Objections overruled;

motions moot;

case dismissed.

MENTEL, P.J., and JAMISON, J., concur.
No. 24AP-99 4

APPENDIX

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State ex rel. Jackie N. Robinson, :

Relator, :

No. 24AP-99

v. :

Annette Chambers-Smith, Director et al., : (REGULAR CALENDAR)

Respondents. :

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

Rendered on March 8, 2024

Jackie N. Robinson, pro se. 

Dave Yost, Attorney General, Marcy Vonderwell, and 

Matthew Convery, for respondents.

______

IN MANDAMUS 

ON SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL

{¶ 7} Relator Jackie N. Robinson seeks a writ of mandamus ordering respondents 

Annette Chambers-Smith and the Ohio Bureau of Sentence Computation (“BSC”) to 

provide various records, correct allegedly inaccurate information in relator’s criminal and 

institutional records, and release him from custody. 

I. Findings of Fact

{¶ 8} 1. At the time of the filing of this action, relator was an inmate incarcerated 

at the Grafton Correctional Institution (“GCI”) in Grafton, Ohio.
No. 24AP-99 5

{¶ 9} 2. Respondent Chambers-Smith, as the director of Ohio Department of 

Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”),

1

is a government employee. The Ohio Adult 

Parole Authority (“APA”) is a bureau-level administrative section of the Division of Parole 

and Community Services, which in turn is a division of ODRC. See R.C. 5120.01;

R.C. 5149.02.

{¶ 10} 3. Respondent BSC, as a bureau-level administrative section of the Division 

of Legal Services of ODRC, is a government entity. 

{¶ 11} 4. Relator commenced this mandamus action by the filing of his complaint 

on February 8, 2024. 

{¶ 12} 5. In his complaint, relator alleges he was sentenced in 1979 to a 40-year 

term of imprisonment which, according to relator, expired in 2019. Relator contends that 

respondents have erroneously withheld 1,960 days of credit toward his sentence. 

According to relator, respondents base their denial of this jail-time credit on the fact that 

relator was not in respondents’ custody while serving time in federal custody from 

March 31, 1988 until August 12, 1993. Relator alleges he was in respondents’ custody as of 

August 1987 related to violations of his parole. Relator states he was held in the Stark 

County Jail pending disposition of other charges against him and was available for return 

to the custody of APA within the meaning of R.C. 2967.15. Relator asserts respondents 

have no authority to interpret or alter the clear and unambiguous statements contained in 

a court judgment. 

{¶ 13} Relator requests respondents be compelled to perform a number of different 

actions. Relator seeks the production of a number of records from respondents, including 

a copy of his arrest record from August 1987, and various other documents arising from 

such arrest including a revocation order, a hearing summary report, a sanction receipt, a 

screening form, and a decision sheet. Relator seeks an order compelling respondents to 

produce the admission date for “case no. CR-793319.” (Compl. at 4.) Relator also requests 

that respondents be ordered to “correct inaccurate information in [relator’s] criminal and 

1 Relator’s complaint lists respondent as the director of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority. The magistrate 

takes judicial notice of the fact that respondent Chambers-Smith is the director of ODRC. Evid.R. 201(B). 

See State ex rel. Mobley v. O’Donnell, 10th Dist. No. 20AP-193, 2021-Ohio-715, ¶ 9; Pearson v. Columbus, 

10th Dist. No. 14AP-313, 2014-Ohio-5563, ¶ 17, citing State ex rel. Everhart v. McIntosh, 115 Ohio St.3d 

195, 2007-Ohio-4798, ¶ 10. 
No. 24AP-99 6

institutional records which determine the expiration date of the case no. CR-793319, and 

to release him from custody pursuant to R.C. 2967.15(B).” (Emphasis omitted.) (Compl. at 

1.) 

{¶ 14} 6. With his complaint, relator filed a document captioned “affidavit of 

indigency and waiver of filing fee’s pursuant to Ohio R.C. 2969.(C).” (Sic passim.) This 

document does not bear the name, signature, or stamp of a notary public. Attached to this 

document was a “cashier’s statement” form that appears to bear the name and signature 

of the cashier at GCI.

{¶ 15} 7. On March 4, 2024, respondent Chambers-Smith filed a motion to dismiss 

pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and request for reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 

R.C. 2323.51.

II. Discussion and Conclusions of Law

{¶ 16} Relator seeks a writ of mandamus ordering respondents to provide him with 

certain documents, to correct certain records, and to release him from incarceration.2

Relator’s complaint is deficient in multiple respects under R.C. 2969.25 and, as a result, 

must be dismissed. 

{¶ 17} R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C) provide procedural requirements for inmates 

commencing a civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee. See State ex 

rel. Foster v. Foley, 170 Ohio St.3d 86, 2022-Ohio-3168, ¶ 10; State ex rel. Swanson v.

Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 156 Ohio St.3d 408, 2019-Ohio-1271, ¶ 6. These procedural 

requirements include an affidavit of prior civil actions under R.C. 2969.25(A) and an 

affidavit of waiver and affidavit of indigency under R.C. 2969.25(C). Compliance with the 

inmate filing requirements of R.C. 2969.25 is mandatory, and failure to comply compels 

dismissal. Boles v. Knab, 129 Ohio St.3d 222, 2011-Ohio-2859, ¶ 1. 

{¶ 18} With regard to the affidavit of prior civil actions, R.C. 2969.25(A) provides 

that an inmate commencing a civil action in the court of appeals must file an affidavit 

2 It is noted that “[h]abeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the appropriate action for persons claiming 

entitlement to immediate release from prison.” State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole Bd., 80 Ohio St.3d 

140, 141 (1997). See also State ex rel. Norris v. Wainwright, 158 Ohio St.3d 20, 2019-Ohio-4138, ¶ 9 (“If a 

petitioner claims he is entitled to an earlier release date but not to immediate release from prison, he does 

not state a cognizable claim in habeas corpus.”). As relator’s complaint must be dismissed on other 

grounds, it is not necessary to further discuss this point.
No. 24AP-99 7

containing 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.” To comply with 

R.C. 2969.25(A), the filed affidavit must include all of the following:

(1) A brief description of the nature of the civil action or 

appeal;

(2) The case name, case number, and the court in which the 

civil action or appeal was brought;

(3) The name of each party to the civil action or appeal;

(4) The outcome of the civil action or appeal, including 

whether the court dismissed the civil action or appeal as 

frivolous or malicious under state or federal law or rule of 

court, whether the court made an award against the inmate or 

the inmate’s counsel of record for frivolous conduct under 

section 2323.51 of the Revised Code, another statute, or a rule 

of court, and, if the court so dismissed the action or appeal or 

made an award of that nature, the date of the final order 

affirming the dismissal or award.

R.C. 2969.25(A). See Swanson at ¶ 5. R.C. 2969.21 provides definitions applicable to 

R.C. 2969.25. A “civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee” is defined 

as including any of the following: 

(a) A civil action that an inmate commences against the state, 

a political subdivision, or an employee of the state or a political 

subdivision in a court of common pleas, court of appeals, 

county court, or municipal court;

(b) An appeal of the judgment or order in a civil action of the 

type described in division (B)(1)(a) of this section that an 

inmate files in a court of appeals.

R.C. 2969.21(B)(1). However, a “civil action or appeal against a government entity or 

employee” does not include “any civil action that an inmate commences against the state, 

a political subdivision, or an employee of the state or a political subdivision in the court of 

claims or the supreme court or an appeal of the judgment or order entered by the court of 

claims in a civil action of that nature, that an inmate files in a court of appeals or the 

supreme court.” R.C. 2969.21(B)(2). Importantly, inmates who have not filed a civil action 

or appeal of a civil action against a government entity or employee in the previous five 

years need not file the affidavit of prior civil actions required by R.C. 2969.25(A). State ex 

rel. Wickensimer v. Bartleson, 123 Ohio St.3d 154, 2009-Ohio-4695, ¶ 3.
No. 24AP-99 8

{¶ 19} With regard to the requirements for an affidavit of indigency, 

R.C. 2969.25(C) provides as follows:

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.

R.C. 2969.25(C). The term “inmate account” is defined as “an account maintained by the 

department of rehabilitation and correction under rules adopted by the director of 

rehabilitation and correction pursuant to section 5120.01 of the Revised Code or a similar 

account maintained by a sheriff or any other administrator of a jail or workhouse or by 

the administrator of a violation sanction center.” R.C. 2969.21(E). 

{¶ 20} Substantial compliance with the inmate filing requirements of R.C. 2969.25

is not sufficient. State ex rel. McGlown v. Mohr, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-478, 2015-Ohio-1554, 

¶ 9, citing State ex rel. Manns v. Henson, 119 Ohio St.3d 348, 2008-Ohio-4478, ¶ 4; State 

ex rel. Neil v. French, 153 Ohio St.3d 271, 2018-Ohio-2692, ¶ 7. Nor can a deficiency in 

compliance with the statutory requirements present at the time of the filing of the 

complaint or petition be cured at a later date. State ex rel. Swopes v. McCormick, 171 Ohio 

St.3d. 492, 2022-Ohio-4408, ¶ 14 (stating that “all avenues for curing a failure to comply 

with R.C. 2969.25” were “expressly foreclosed”) (Emphasis sic.)); State ex rel. Young v. 

Clipper, 142 Ohio St.3d 318, 2015-Ohio-1351, ¶ 9 (stating that failure to comply with the 

mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25 “is not curable by subsequent amendment” and 

that a “belated attempt to file an affidavit that complies with R.C. 2969.25 does not excuse 

the noncompliance”); Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211, 2003-Ohio-5533, ¶ 9; Boles 

at ¶ 2. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that a court does not err by sua 

sponte dismissing an original action for failure to comply with the inmate filing 
No. 24AP-99 9

requirements in R.C. 2969.25. State ex rel. Bey v. Bur. of Sentence Computation, 166 Ohio 

St.3d 497, 2022-Ohio-236, ¶ 19; State ex rel. Watkins v. Andrews, 142 Ohio St.3d 308, 

2015-Ohio-1100, ¶ 8; State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, 140 Ohio St.3d 297, 2014-Ohio-3735, ¶ 5. 

{¶ 21} First, relator has failed to comply with the requirement under 

R.C. 2969.25(A) to file an affidavit of prior civil actions. It is readily apparent that relator 

has filed multiple actions in mandamus and habeas in Ohio courts of appeals within the 

previous five years.3 See Robinson v. Fender, 11th Dist. No. 2019-A-0084, 2020-Ohio-983

(habeas corpus action); Robinson v. Fender, 11th Dist. No. 2021-T-0048, 2022-Ohio-580, 

¶ 4 (habeas corpus action). See also Robinson v. Fender, 11th Dist. No. 2019-CA-0039 

(habeas corpus action). Original actions in mandamus and habeas are civil actions for 

purposes of R.C. 2969.21 et seq. See Fuqua at paragraph one of the syllabus (“A habeas 

corpus action is a civil action and therefore the provisions of R.C. 2969.21 through 2969.27 

are applicable to such action.”); State ex rel. McGrath v. McDonnell, 126 Ohio St.3d 511, 

2010-Ohio-4726, ¶ 3 (stating that a “mandamus case is a civil case for purposes of 

R.C. 2969.21(B)(1)(a), which addresses inmate actions against government entities”). 

Relator cannot be said to be unaware of the requirements of R.C. 2969.25 because at least 

one of the cases he filed in the previous five years was dismissed for failing to comply with 

the requirement to file a proper affidavit of prior civil actions under R.C. 2969.25(A). In 

this case, relator did not file an affidavit of prior civil actions in full compliance with 

R.C. 2969.25(A). As a result, this action must be dismissed. See Bey, 2022-Ohio-236, ¶ 19.

{¶ 22} Second, relator’s complaint is also subject to dismissal for failure to comply 

with R.C. 2969.25(C). Relator filed with his petition a document captioned “affidavit of 

indigency and waiver of filing fee’s pursuant to Ohio R.C. 2969.(C).” (Sic passim.) 

Although it is stated on the document that it was “[s]worn to and subscribed before a 

notary public,” there is no indication on the document that a notary was ever involved. 

There is no name, stamp, or signature of a notary. Thus, this document is not an affidavit. 

3 A court may take judicial notice of the pleadings and orders in related cases where these are not subject 

to reasonable dispute insofar as they affect the current original action. Evid.R. 201(B); State ex rel. Ohio 

Republican Party v. Fitzgerald, 145 Ohio St.3d 92, 2015-Ohio-5056, ¶ 18; State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 

128 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-229, ¶ 8. As the dockets for these cases are publicly available, not subject 

to reasonable dispute, and relevant to the present action, the magistrate takes judicial notice of these civil 

actions filed by relator within the previous five years.
No. 24AP-99 10

See R.C. 2319.02 (“An affidavit is a written declaration under oath”); State ex rel. White v. 

Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 160 Ohio St.3d 1, 2020-Ohio-524, ¶ 13, quoting In re 

Disqualification of Pokorny, 74 Ohio St.3d 1238 (1992) (“ ‘An affidavit must appear, on its 

face, to have been taken before the proper officer and in compliance with all legal 

requisites. A paper purporting to be an affidavit, but not to have been sworn to before an 

officer, is not an affidavit.’ ”). This court has previously dismissed a mandamus complaint 

sua sponte for failing to comply with R.C. 2969.25 because, in part, the affidavit was not 

notarized. State ex rel. Guthrie v. Chambers-Smith, 10th Dist. No. 21AP-476, 2022-Ohio390, ¶ 4.

{¶ 23} Moreover, relator’s documentation fails to satisfy R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). The 

cashier’s statement supplied by relator provides some information including the total 

amount of payroll credited to relator’s account for the preceding six months, average 

monthly payroll amount for the preceding six months, total amount credited to relator’s 

account from all other sources during the preceding six months, and total expenditures for 

all transactions from the inmate’s account for the preceding six months. However, relator’s 

affidavit fails to contain a statement certified by the institutional cashier that sets forth the 

balance in relator’s inmate account for each of the preceding six months as required by 

R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). State ex rel. Roden v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 159 Ohio St.3d 

314, 2020-Ohio-408, ¶ 9 (finding that although the inmate’s affidavit of indigency 

contained information including “a cashier’s statement listing the balance in his inmate 

account * * *, the total amount he had earned through state pay for the preceding six 

months, and the total amount he had spent in his commissary during the same period,” 

his complaint was correctly dismissed pursuant to R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) because his 

“affidavit of indigency [did] not include a statement setting forth the balance in his inmate 

account for each of the preceding six months” (Emphasis sic.)) See State ex rel. Swanson 

v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 20AP-151, 2021-Ohio-338, ¶ 7; State ex rel. 

Sands v. Lake Cty. Common Pleas Court, 172 Ohio St.3d 146, 2023-Ohio-2599, ¶ 8; 

Greene v. Turner, 151 Ohio St.3d 513, 2017-Ohio-8305, ¶ 6. 

{¶ 24} Because relator has failed to fully comply with the mandatory requirements 

of R.C. 2969.25 at the time of the filing of his complaint, this action must be dismissed. 

See State ex rel. Armengau v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 15AP-1070, 
No. 24AP-99 11

2017-Ohio-368, ¶ 13; Sands at ¶ 11; Roden at ¶ 9; State ex rel. Swain v. Ohio Adult Parole 

Auth., 10th Dist. No. 16AP-519, 2017-Ohio-517, ¶ 5. Although relator’s action must be 

dismissed for failing to comply with R.C. 2969.25, it is noted that “a dismissal for failure 

to meet the requirements of R.C. 2969.25 is not a dismissal on the merits.” (Emphasis 

added.) Watkins, 2015-Ohio-1100, at ¶ 8, citing Hall, 2014-Ohio-3735, at ¶ 5.

{¶ 25} Accordingly, it is the decision and recommendation of the magistrate that 

relator’s request for a writ of mandamus should be dismissed sua sponte. Respondent 

Chambers-Smith’s March 4, 2024 motion to dismiss and request for reasonable attorney 

fees is rendered moot.4

/S/ MAGISTRATE 

 JOSEPH E. WENGER IV

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). A party may file written objections to the 

magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the 

decision.

4 Insofar as respondent Chambers-Smith’s request for attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 2323.51 is not 

rendered moot by the sua sponte dismissal of this action, the magistrate recommends denying the request 

for attorney fees.