[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Sheets v. Chief of Police, Cedar Point Police Dept., Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio3309.]

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, Oh io 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2015-O HIO -3309
T HE S TATE EX REL . S HEETS , A PPELLANT , v. C HIEF OF P OLICE , C EDAR P OINT P OLICE D EPARTMENT , A PPELLEE . [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Sheets v. Chief of Police, Cedar Point Police Dept., Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-3309.] Inmates—Civil actions—Affi davits—R.C. 2969.25’s require ments for affidavits filed by inmates commencing civil ac tions against government entities or employees do not apply to federal inmates—Dismissal of public-records
mandamus action reversed—Cause remanded. (No. 2014-2166—Submitted May 5, 2015—Decided August 20, 2015.)

A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Erie County, No. E-14-0126.

_____________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We reverse the dismissal of this case in which relator, Daniel Sheets, a federal inmate, made a pub lic-records request of respondent, the chief of police of the Cedar Point Police Department. Sh eets sued in mandamus on November 7,S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 2014, in the Sixth District Court of Appeal s, alleging that respondent failed to provide the requested records. {¶ 2} Respondent filed no response to th e complaint, but on December 2, 2014, the court of appeals nevertheless di smissed the case, finding that Sheets failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C)(2), wh ich requires an inma te’s affidavit of indigency in a suit against a government entity or employee to contain a statement
of the inmate’s assets. {¶ 3} Sheets argues in his brief that R.C. 2969.25(C) should not apply to him because he is not filing a civil action against a government entity or employee. However, Sheets also asserts in his complaint that respondent is “a governmental employee,” that he “performs a government al function,” and that he “operates on behalf of the state.” Sheets’s arguments are therefore without merit. {¶ 4} However, the definition of “inm ate” for purposes of R.C. 2969.25 is “a person who is in actual confinement in a state correctional institution * * *.” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2969.21(D). The definition does not include persons in confinement in federal prison. Id . Sheets is an inmate in a federal prison, not a state prison. For that reason, the court of appeals erred in dismissing Sheets’s complaint for failing to comply with R.C. 2969.25. {¶ 5} We therefore reverse and remand the case for further proceedings. Judgment reversed
and cause remanded.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and
O’N EILL , JJ., concur.
L ANZINGER , J., concurs in judgment only.

_____________________ Daniel Sheets, pro se.

_______________________