[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, 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. 2015-OHIO-3309

THE STATE EX REL. SHEETS, APPELLANT, v. CHIEF OF POLICE, CEDAR POINT 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, APPELLEE. 

[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—Affidavits—R.C. 2969.25’s requirements for affidavits 

filed by inmates commencing civil actions 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.) 

APPEAL 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 public-records request of respondent, the chief of police 

of the Cedar Point Police Department. Sheets sued in mandamus on November 7, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

2014, in the Sixth District Court of Appeals, alleging that respondent failed to 

provide the requested records. 

{¶ 2} Respondent filed no response to the complaint, but on December 2, 

2014, the court of appeals nevertheless dismissed the case, finding that Sheets 

failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C)(2), which requires an inmate’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 governmental function,” and that he 

“operates on behalf of the state.” Sheets’s arguments are therefore without merit. 

{¶ 4} However, the definition of “inmate” 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’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and

O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

LANZINGER, J., concurs in judgment only. 

_____________________ 

 Daniel Sheets, pro se. 

_______________________