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

ex rel. Robinson v. Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-8721.] 

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. 2017-OHIO-8721

THE STATE EX REL. ROBINSON, APPELLANT, v. ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY,

APPELLEE.

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

may be cited as State ex rel. Robinson v. Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion No. 

2017-Ohio-8721.] 

Mandamus—Appellant failed to comply with mandatory filing requirements of R.C. 

2969.25(A)—Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed. 

(No. 2016-1181—Submitted May 16, 2017—Decided November 30, 2017.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 

No. 16AP-284. 

________________ 

 Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} On April 13, 2016, appellant, Damon Robinson, an inmate at the 

Belmont Correctional Institution, filed an original action in the Tenth District Court 

of Appeals, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Ohio Adult Parole Authority 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

(“APA”) to conduct a new parole-revocation hearing. On July 25, 2016, a Tenth 

District magistrate sua sponte recommended dismissal of the petition. 

{¶ 2} Robinson appealed. On September 14, 2016, he filed a merit brief. 

The APA responded by filing a motion to dismiss the appeal. For the reasons set 

forth below, we deny the motion to dismiss and affirm the judgment of the Tenth 

District Court of Appeals. 

{¶ 3} The motion to dismiss is, in substance, a merit brief. It devotes three 

pages to defending the magistrate’s decision and the remaining 53 pages to an 

extensive analysis of Robinson’s prior litigation history and a detailed rebuttal of 

his constitutional claims, none of which is at issue in this appeal. But the motion 

presents no theory (such as, for example, untimeliness) for dismissing this appeal. 

Because the APA presents no basis for dismissal, we deny the motion. 

{¶ 4} An inmate who commences a civil action against a government entity 

or employee must file 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.” R.C. 2969.25(A). For each action or appeal, the affidavit 

must contain the case name, the case number, the court in which the case was filed, 

the name of each party, a brief description of the nature of the action or appeal, and 

the outcome. R.C. 2969.25(A)(1) through (4). 

{¶ 5} Robinson submitted to the court of appeals along with his petition a 

document captioned “Affidavit of Prior Civil Filings” indicating that he had filed 

one civil action in the previous five years: “State Habeas Corpus Petition in the 

Seventh District Court of Appeals, case number 15 BE 62. The Outcome: The 

Habeas Corpus was dismissed on procedural grounds, an appeal of right is pending 

in the Ohio Supreme Court. S.Ct. Case number ________.” (Bold and underlining 

sic.) Robinson did not include the name of the case or the names of the parties, as 

expressly required by R.C. 2969.25(A)(2) and (3). 
January Term, 2017 

3

{¶ 6} “The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to 

comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.” State ex rel. White v. 

Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5. On appeal, 

Robinson asserts that he used a form provided by the prison’s law library when 

drafting his affidavit and that he misunderstood what the statute required. 

However, there is nothing ambiguous or misleading about the language of R.C. 

2969.25(A)(2) and (3), and “ ‘pro se litigants are presumed to have knowledge of 

the law and legal procedures and * * * are held to the same standard as litigants 

who are represented by counsel,’ ” State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d 

352, 2003-Ohio-6448, 800 N.E.2d 25, ¶ 10, quoting Sabouri v. Dept. of Job & 

Family Servs., 145 Ohio App.3d 651, 654, 763 N.E.2d 1238 (10th Dist.2001). 

Because Robinson failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 

2969.25(A), the court of appeals correctly dismissed his petition. 

{¶ 7} Accordingly, we deny the APA’s motion to dismiss, but we affirm the 

judgment of the court of appeals. 

Motion denied 

and judgment affirmed. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, and

DEWINE, JJ., concur. 

O’NEILL, J., dissents. 

_________________ 

Damon Robinson, pro se. 

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and George Horvath, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee. 

_________________