[Cite as State ex rel. Hunter v. Clipper , 2021-Ohio-884.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN )

STATE OF OHIO EX REL. JOHN L. HUNTER

Petitioner

v. KIMBERLY CLIPPER, WARDEN Respondent C.A. No. 20CA011704

ORIGINAL ACTION IN HABEAS CORPUS

Dated: March 22, 2021

PER CURIAM. {¶1} Petitioner John Hunter has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus asking this Court to order Respondent Kimber ly Clipper, Warden of Lorain Co rrectional Institution, to release him from prison. Respondent has moved to dismiss. Bec ause Mr. Hunter’s petition does not comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25, and the requirements of R.C. 2725.04, this Court must dismiss this action. Mandatory filing requirements {¶2} R.C. 2969.25 sets forth specific filing requirements for inmate s who file a civil action against a government employee or entity. Warden Clipper is a government employee and Mr. Hunter, incarcerated in the Lorain Correctional Institution , is an inmate. R.C. 2969.21(C) and (D). A case must be dismissed if the inmate fails to compl y with the mandato ry requirements

of R.C. 2969.25 in the commencement of the action. State ex rel. Graham v. Findlay Mun. Court ,C.A. No. 20CA011704 Page 2 of 4 106 Ohio St.3d 63, 2005-Ohio-3671, ¶ 6 (“The requirements of R. C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them s ubjects an inmate’s action to dism issal.”). {¶3} Mr. Hunter did not pay the cost deposit for filing this action. He wrote in his petition that “This filing is made in accordance with Ohio Revi sed Code Chapter 2969.25.” R.C. 2969.25(C) applies when an inmate seeks a waiver of the prepaym ent of the filing fees, as it appears Mr. Hunter did here. Thi s section requires the inmate to file an affidavit of indigency. The affidavit must include, among other things, “[a] statement that sets forth the balance in the inmate account of the inmate for each of the preceding six mont hs, as certified by the institutional cashier[.]” R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). Mr . Hunter failed to file an affidavit of indigency. He also did

not file a statement of his in mate account. “‘R.C. 2969.25(C) does not permit substantial compliance[;]’” it requires strict adherence by the filing inma te. Id . at ¶ 8, citing State ex rel.

Neil v. French , 153 Ohio St.3d 271, 2018-Ohio-2692, ¶ 7. Therefore, Mr. Hunt er failed to comply with the mandatory r equirements of R.C. 2969.25(C). Statutory Habeas Corpus requirements {¶4} Even if we could overlook Mr. Hunter’s failure to comply with R .C. 2969.25, we

must conclude that Mr. Hunter fa iled to comply with the statuto ry requirements for filing a petition for habeas corpus. R .C. 2725.04 imposes requirements on a petition for habeas corpus, including that the commitment pa pers be attached and that the p etition be verified. {¶5} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that because “‘commitment paper s are necessary for a complete understanding of the petition,’” the o mission of commitment papers is

a fatal defect. Brown v. Rogers , 72 Ohio St.3d 339, 341 (1995), quoting Bloss v. Rogers , 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 146 (1992). “When a petition is presented to a cour t that does not comply with R.C. 2725.04(D), there is no showing of how the commitment was procu red and there is nothingC.A. No. 20CA011704 Page 3 of 4 before the court on which to make a determined judgment except, of course, the bare allegations of petitioner’s a pplication.” Brown at 341, quoting Bloss at 146. {¶6} Further, a petition filed without any verification must be dism issed. Chari v. Vore , 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 328 (2001). “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

statements in the document.” Id. at 327. To meet the verificati on requirement, Mr. Hunter must have expressly sworn to the tru th of the facts contained in the petition. Id. at 328. {¶7} Mr. Hunter simply signed the petition. This does not rise to t he level of a “formal act or presence calculated to b ring to bear upon the declarant’ s conscience the full meaning of

what he does.” Id. at 327, citing Youngstown Steel Door Co. v. Kosydar , 33 Ohio App.2d 277 (1973). Mr. Hunter did not make a formal declaration by which he swore to the truth of the

statements in the document. See Watkins v. Collins , 111 Ohio St.3d 425, 2006-Ohio-5082, ¶ 35. Because the petition is not verified, it is defective and must be dismissed. {¶8} Because Mr. Hunter did not compl y with the mandatory requiremen ts of R.C. 2969.25, or comply with the requi rements of R.C. 2725.04, this case is dismissed. Costs are taxed to Mr. Hunter. The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all par ties not in default notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See Civ.R. 58.

LYNNE S. CALL AHAN FOR THE COURT

HENSAL, J. TEODOSIO, J. CONCUR.C.A. No. 20CA011704 Page 4 of 4

APPEARANCES: JOHN L. HUNTER, Pro se, Petitioner. DAVE YOST, Attorney General, and DANIEL J. BENOIT, Associate As sistant Attorney General, for Respondent.