[Cite as State ex rel. Sajn v. Vogel, 2024-Ohio-1552.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State ex rel. Michael J. Sajn, :

Relator, :

 No. 23AP-758

v. :

Rebecca Vogel, In Her Official Capacity : (REGULAR CALENDAR)

As Hearing Officer for the Ohio Parole

Board et al., :

Respondents. :

D E C I S I O N

Rendered on April 23, 2024

On brief: Michael J. Sajn, pro se.

On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and George Horvath, 

for respondents.

IN MANDAMUS

ON SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL

BOGGS, J.

{¶ 1} Relator, Michael J. Sajn, seeks a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, 

Rebecca Vogel, in her official capacity as hearing officer for the Ohio Parole Board, to vacate 

his allegedly unlawfully imposed post-release control, any unlawful sanction time imposed 

under his post-release control, and to hold a new post-release control violation hearing. 

For the following reasons, we sua sponte dismiss his petition for writ of mandamus.

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

this matter was referred to a magistrate. The magistrate considered the action on its merits 

and issued a decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, which is appended 

hereto. The magistrate concluded that Sajn failed to provide along with his affidavit of 
No. 23AP-758 2

indigency a statement which set forth the balance in his inmate account in accordance with 

R.C. 2969.25(C)(1).

{¶ 3} No objections have been filed to the magistrate’s decision. “If no timely 

objections are filed, the court may adopt a magistrate’s decision unless the court determines 

that there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the decision.” Civ.R. 

53(D)(4)(c).

{¶ 4} Upon review, we find no error in the magistrate’s findings of fact or 

conclusions of law. Therefore, we adopt the magistrate’s decision, including the findings of 

fact and the conclusions of law therein, as our own and conclude that Sajn has failed to 

comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C). In accordance with the 

magistrate’s decision, this action is sua sponte dismissed.

Action dismissed.

DORRIAN and JAMISON, JJ., concur.
No. 23AP-758 3

 APPENDIX

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State ex rel. Michael J. Sajn, :

Relator, :

v. : No. 23AP-758

:

Rebecca Vogel, In Her Official Capacity (REGULAR CALENDAR)

As Hearing Officer for the Ohio Parole :

Board et al., 

:

Respondents.

:

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

Rendered on January 24, 2024

Michael J. Sajn, pro se. 

IN MANDAMUS 

ON SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL

{¶ 5} Relator, Michael J. Sajn, seeks a writ of mandamus ordering respondents, 

Rebecca Vogel, in her official capacity as a hearing officer for the Ohio Parole Board (“parole 

board”), and Shonisha Boley, in her official capacity as a parole officer for the Ohio Adult 

Parole Authority (“OAPA”), to vacate allegedly unlawfully imposed postrelease control, 

vacate allegedly unlawful sanction time, and to hold a new postrelease control violation 

hearing.

I. Findings of Fact

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

incarcerated at the Lorain Correctional Institution in Grafton, Ohio.
No. 23AP-758 4

{¶ 7} 2. Respondents are government employees of the parole board and OAPA. 

The parole board and OAPA are administrative sections of the Ohio Department of 

Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”).

{¶ 8} 3. On December 21, 2023, relator commenced this mandamus action by filing 

his complaint.

{¶ 9} 4. In his complaint, relator alleges that prior to his release from a term of 

imprisonment on July 25, 2013, he was screened for postrelease control. Relator alleged he 

was not informed by prison authorities he would be placed on postrelease control. Relator 

states he was never served with any paperwork related to postrelease control, nor did he 

sign any paperwork for postrelease control, as required by ODRC policies and procedures. 

{¶ 10} According to relator, he was arrested on “drug charges” in 2017 and 

imprisoned. (Compl. at 3.) Relator states that, following his release from prison on 

September 25, 2020, the state of Ohio “assumed his parole supervision on November 20, 

2023.” (Compl. at 3.) Relator alleges the state of Arizona revoked his probation on August 

31, 2021, at which time OAPA’s supervision of relator terminated. Relator alleges that on 

August 2, 2023, he was informed he was in violation of his postrelease control and arrested 

in Ohio. Relator states he was charged with “five counts of Rule 1 violations, two counts of 

Rule 2 violations, and one count of Rule 3 violation.” (Compl. at 5.) 

{¶ 11} Relator claims that he was not on postrelease control in Ohio on August 2, 

2023. From this, relator claims that OAPA and ODRC committed due process violations 

“when they mistakenly placed the Relator on postrelease control, caused his unlawful 

arrest, and restrained him of his liberty interests with no just cause.” (Compl. at 4.) Relator 

claims that revocation of postrelease control was unlawful because postrelease control was 

not legally imposed on relator. Further, relator states:

The mere fact that the Relator was in custody several times in 

Ohio and Arizona and there was never a parole holder placed 

on him in regards to the [postrelease control] in question, nor 

any revocation proceedings initiated in regards to the 

[postrelease control] in question, is evidence that [postrelease 

control] was never imposed, or properly implemented in this 

matter.

(Compl. at 9.)
No. 23AP-758 5

{¶ 12} Relator seeks relief in the form of a peremptory writ of mandamus ordering 

respondents to “hold a new parole board hearing in this matter to ‘vacate the unlawfully 

imposed Postrelease control’, and to ‘vacate any and all unlawful sanction time imposed 

under the invalid Postrelease control.” (Sic passim.) (Compl. at 10.) 

II. Discussion and Conclusions of Law

{¶ 13} 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. 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. 

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

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). R.C. 2969.21 provides definitions applicable to R.C. 2969.25. 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). 

{¶ 15} 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 
No. 23AP-758 6

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 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 a complaint for failing to comply with the inmate filing 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. 

{¶ 16} Here, relator filed with his complaint an affidavit of indigency. Relator’s 

affidavit contained information allegedly certified by the institutional cashier regarding the 

period of incarceration beginning August 7, 2023. The affidavit contained information

related to his inmate account balance as of November 21, 2023, total state pay credited for 

the report period; average monthly state pay for the report period; total funds received from 

all sources, excluding state pay, for the report period; and total amount spent in the 

commissary during the same period. However, relator failed to provide with his affidavit of 

indigency a statement certified by the institutional cashier that set forth the balance in 

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

R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). 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-Ohio8305, ¶ 6. Furthermore, the affidavit does not contain a statement that sets forth all other 

cash and things of value he owns as required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(2). State ex rel. Armengau 

v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 15AP-1070, 2017-Ohio-368, ¶ 11. Because 

relator has failed to fully comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C), his 

complaint must be dismissed. Id. at ¶ 13; Sands at ¶ 11; State ex rel. Roden v. Ohio Dept. of 
No. 23AP-758 7

Rehab. & Corr., 159 Ohio St.3d 314, 2020-Ohio-408, ¶ 9; State ex rel. Swain v. Ohio Adult 

Parole Auth., 10th Dist. No. 16AP-519, 2017-Ohio-517, ¶ 5. 

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

mandamus action should be dismissed sua sponte. 

/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.