Case Name: The STATE ex. rel. BRISTOW, Relator, v. HUFFMAN, et al., Respondents
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2000-09-22
Citations: 138 Ohio App. 3d 500
Docket Number: No. 00 C.A. 150
Parties: The STATE ex. rel. BRISTOW, Relator, v. HUFFMAN, et al., Respondents.
Judges: Cox, Vukovich and Gene Donofrio, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Appellate Reports, Third Series
Volume: 138
Pages: 500–502

Head Matter:
The STATE ex. rel. BRISTOW, Relator, v. HUFFMAN, et al., Respondents.
[Cite as State ex rel. Bristow v. Huffman (2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 500.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning County.
No. 00 C.A. 150.
Decided Sept. 22, 2000.
Lonny Lee Bristow, pro se.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Todd R. Marti, Assistant Attorney General, Corrections Litigation Section, for respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This case arises as an original action in this court on a petition for writ of Tna.nda.muR whereby relator Lonny Lee Bristow alleges that respondents violated Department of Rehabilitation and Correction's ("DRNC") Policy 304.01 in the manner in which respondents transferred him from one penal institution to the institution at which he is presently incarcerated.
R.C. 2969.25 requires an inmate suing the state or its employees to file an affidavit disclosing all prior civil actions or appeals he initiated during the last five years. This code section states that "the inmate shall file with the court an affidavit that contains a description of each civil action filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court."
In a prior mandamus action before this court by the relator, we noted that relator had filed at least thirty-nine federal lawsuits against various government entities and officials. See State ex rel. Bristow v. Ritz (Aug. 14, 2000), Mahoning App. No. 00 C.A. 114, unreported, 2000 WL 1262454. In the instant case, relator has listed only eleven cases or appeals that he has filed against a government entity or employee. In their motion to dismiss, respondents have identified at least twelve cases filed by the relator that relator has failed to include among those cases listed in this case. Thus, relator has violated the provisions of R.C. 2969.25.
The provisions of R.C. 2969.25(A) are mandatory and failure to comply are grounds for dismissal. See State ex rel. Alford v. Winters (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 285, 685 N.E.2d 1242. Relator has materially misstated the number of civil actions in the affidavit he has filed pursuant to R.C. 2969.25. For the reasons cited above, relator's request for writ of mandamus is denied.
Respondents' motion to dismiss is granted.
Costs taxed against relator.
Final order. Clerk to serve a copy of this order to the parties as provided by the Civil Rules.
Judgment accordingly.
Cox, Vukovich and Gene Donofrio, JJ., concur.