Case Name: [The State ex rel.] Norris, Appellant, v. Giavasis, Clerk, et al., Appellees
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2003-12-31
Citations: 100 Ohio St. 3d 371
Docket Number: No. 2003-1478
Parties: [The State ex rel.] Norris, Appellant, v. Giavasis, Clerk, et al., Appellees.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 100
Pages: 371–372

Head Matter:
[The State ex rel.] Norris, Appellant, v. Giavasis, Clerk, et al., Appellees.
[Cite as State ex rel. Norris v. Giavasis, 100 Ohio St.3d 371, 2003-Ohio-6609.]
(No. 2003-1478
Submitted December 2, 2003
Decided December 31, 2003.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} On July 24, 2003, appellant, Robert Lee Norris, an inmate, filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Stark County. Norris sought a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, Stark County Common Pleas Court Clerk Phil G. Giavasis and Deputy Clerk A. Gifford, to remove from their records "the July 11, 2003 Appearance Docket and each of its entries" and to retain "the certified 'June 25, 2002' Appearance Docket." The docket entries were of his criminal case stemming from a 1992 indictment.
{¶ 2} Norris filed an affidavit that he claimed listed his prior "civil actions and criminal appeals within the preceding (5) five years pursuant to [R.C.] 2969.25." The affidavit, however, did not contain a "brief description of the nature" of each civil action or appeal and the outcome of each civil action and appeal. R.C. 2969.25(A)(1) and (4). And although Norris requested a waiver of the filing fees assessed by the court of appeals based on his claimed indigency, his affidavit of indigency did not contain the statement required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) setting forth the balance in his inmate account "for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier."
{¶ 3} On August 1, 2003, the court of appeals sua sponte dismissed Norris's complaint.
Robert Lee Norris, pro se.
{¶ 4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. "The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate's action to dismissal." State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5. Norris failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) and 2969.25(C)(1). State ex rel. Kimbro v. Glavas, 97 Ohio St.3d 197, 2002-Ohio-5808, 777 N.E.2d 257, ¶ 2; White, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 2, 5.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor and O'Donnell, JJ., concur.