[Cite as State ex rel. Chase Banks v. Bender, 2017-Ohio-21.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

The State ex rel. Chase Banks, : 

 Relator, : 

 

v. : No. 16AP-526 

 

John [F.] Bender, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

Franklin County Common Pleas Judge, 

 : 

 Respondent. 

 : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on January 5, 2017 

 

On brief: Chase Banks, pro se. 

On brief: Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Jeffrey C. 

Rogers, for respondent.

 

IN PROCEDENDO 

ON SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL 

HORTON, J. 

{¶ 1} Relator, Chase Banks, an inmate, has filed an original action requesting this 

court issue a writ of procedendo to respondent, the Honorable John F. Bender, formerly a 

judge of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, to rule on a motion he filed in the 

common pleas court in February 2016 in Franklin C.P. No. o9CR-3946. On 

August 9, 2016, respondent filed a motion to dismiss. 

{¶ 2} This matter was referred to a magistrate of this court pursuant to 

Civ.R. 53(C) and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals. The magistrate 

issued the appended decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, 

recommending that this court sua sponte dismiss this action because relator has failed to 

comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C), i.e., relator has not filed a statement 
No. 16AP-526 2 

that sets forth the balance in his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as 

certified by the institutional cashier pursuant to R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). 

{¶ 3} No objections have been filed to the magistrate's decision. 

{¶ 4} Finding no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate's 

decision, this court adopts the magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of 

fact and conclusions of law. In accordance with the magistrate's decision, we sua 

sponte dismiss this action. 

Action dismissed. 

TYACK, P.J. and BROWN, J., concur. 

_________________ 

 
No. 16AP-526 3 

APPENDIX 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

The State ex rel. Chase Banks, : 

 Relator, : 

 

v. : No. 16AP-526 

 

John [F.] Bender, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

Franklin County Common Pleas Judge, 

 : 

 Respondent. 

 : 

 

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

Rendered on August 29, 2016

 

Chase Banks, pro se. 

Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Jeffrey C. Rogers, 

for respondent.

 

IN PROCEDENDO 

ON SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL 

{¶ 5} In this original action, relator, Chase Banks, an inmate of the Chillicothe 

Correctional Institution ("CCI"), requests that a writ of procedendo issue against 

respondent, the Honorable John F. Bender, formerly a judge of the Franklin County Court 

of Common Pleas. Relator requests that the writ order respondent to rule on a motion he 

filed in the common pleas court in February 2016 in Franklin C.P. No. 09CR-3946. 

Findings of Fact:

{¶ 6} 1. On July 18, 2016, relator, a CCI inmate, filed this procedendo action 

against respondent. 
No. 16AP-526 4 

{¶ 7} 2. Relator has not deposited with the clerk of this court the monetary sum 

required as security for the payment of costs. See Loc.R. 13(B) of the Tenth District Court 

of Appeals. 

{¶ 8} 3. With his complaint, relator filed an affidavit that he is seeking a waiver of 

the prepayment of this court's full filing fees pursuant to R.C. 2969.25(C). 

{¶ 9} 4. With his complaint, relator filed an affidavit of indigency that relator 

executed July 12, 2016. 

{¶ 10} 5. Relator has not filed a statement that sets forth the balance in his inmate 

account for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier 

pursuant to R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). 

{¶ 11} 6. On August 9, 2016, respondent filed a motion to dismiss. In the 

memorandum in support, it is stated "Judge O'Donnell, as the Trial Court, denied the 

motion on March 8, 2016." However, respondent has not attached a copy of the common 

pleas court entry that denies relator's motion. 

Conclusions of Law:

{¶ 12} It is the magistrate's decision that this court sua sponte dismiss this action, 

as more fully explained below. 

{¶ 13} R.C. 2969.25(C) provides: 

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. 
No. 16AP-526 5 

{¶ 14} As earlier noted, relator failed to file with his complaint a statement that 

sets forth the balance in his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as 

certified by the institutional cashier pursuant to R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). 

{¶ 15} The magistrate concludes that relator has failed to satisfy the mandatory 

requirements set forth at R.C. 2969.25(C). 

{¶ 16} Thus, this court must sua sponte dismiss this action. Fuqua v. 

Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211, 2003-Ohio-5533; Hawkins v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility, 102 

Ohio St.3d 299, 2004-Ohio-2893. 

{¶ 17} Accordingly, for all the above reasons, it is the magistrate's decision that this 

court sua sponte dismiss this action. It is further the magistrate's decision that 

respondent's August 9, 2016 motion to dismiss is moot. 

 

 /S/ MAGISTRATE 

 KENNETH W. MACKE 

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).