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

ex rel. Davenport v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-3414.] 

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. 2016-OHIO-3414

THE STATE EX REL. DAVENPORT, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF OHIO,

APPELLEE. 

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

may be cited as State ex rel. Davenport v. State, Slip Opinion No. 

2016-Ohio-3414.] 

Mandamus—R.C. 2969.25(C)—Failure to document balance of inmate account for 

six months preceding filing of complaint—Court of appeals’ dismissal of 

complaint affirmed. 

(No. 2015-1268—Submitted March 8, 2016—Decided June 16, 2016.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 14AP-1041. 

_____________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Relator-appellant, Carlos Davenport, is an inmate who filed a petition 

for a writ of mandamus in the Tenth District Court of Appeals requesting that court 

to order the trial court in his underlying criminal case to rule on motions that were 

allegedly pending. He filed an affidavit of indigency in the court of appeals that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

requested a waiver of fees and costs. However, he failed to provide a statement of 

the amount in his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as required 

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

{¶ 2} The court of appeals’ magistrate recommended that the court grant the 

state’s motion to dismiss the case for Davenport’s failure to satisfy the requirements 

of R.C. 2969.25. No objections were filed, and the court of appeals accepted and 

adopted the magistrate’s decision and recommendation as to that issue and 

dismissed the case. Davenport appealed. 

{¶ 3} The court of appeals was correct to dismiss the case on the basis 

recommended by the magistrate. “ ‘The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are 

mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to 

dismissal.’ ” Boles v. Knab, 129 Ohio St.3d 222, 2011-Ohio-2859, 951 N.E.2d 389, 

¶ 1, quoting State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 

N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5; State ex rel. McGrath v. McDonnell, 126 Ohio St.3d 511, 2010-

Ohio-4726, 935 N.E.2d 830, ¶ 1. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court of 

appeals. 

{¶ 4} Finally, we deny Davenport’s motion for oral argument. Oral 

argument in a direct appeal is discretionary. S.Ct.Prac.R. 17.02(A). None of the 

factors we normally consider in granting a motion for oral argument exists in this 

case. See State ex rel. Manley v. Walsh, 142 Ohio St.3d 384, 2014-Ohio-4563, 31 

N.E.3d 608, ¶ 16, citing Appenzeller v. Miller, 136 Ohio St.3d 378, 2013-Ohio3719, 996 N.E.2d 919, ¶ 4, and cases cited therein. 

Judgment affirmed 

and motion denied. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

 Carlos Davenport, pro se. 
January Term, 2016 

3

Ron O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jeffrey C. Rogers, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

_________________