Case Name: The State ex rel. Hall, Appellant, v. Mohr, Dir., Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2014-09-02
Citations: 140 Ohio St. 3d 297
Docket Number: No. 2014-0070
Parties: The State ex rel. Hall, Appellant, v. Mohr, Dir., Appellee.
Judges: O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 140
Pages: 297–298

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Hall, Appellant, v. Mohr, Dir., Appellee.
[Cite as State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, 140 Ohio St.Sd 297, 2014-Ohio-3735.]
(No. 2014-0070
— Submitted August 20, 2014
— Decided September 2, 2014.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} We affirm the Tenth District Court of Appeals' dismissal of appellant David Hall's complaint in mandamus. Hall filed the action in the Tenth District Court of Appeals seeking an order compelling appellee, Gary Mohr, Director of Rehabilitation and Correction, to hold an immediate hearing and grant Hall release from incarceration. Except for several exhibits, the only attachment to the original complaint was an affidavit of verity attesting to Hall's competency and the truthfulness of the statements in the complaint and the attached exhibits.
David Hall, pro se.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Mindy Worly, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
{¶ 2} The matter was referred to a magistrate, who determined that Hall failed to file with his complaint several of the documents required by R.C. 2969.25. Specifically, he failed to file an affidavit of prior civil actions, required by R.C. 2969.25(A), an affidavit seeking prepayment of the court's filing fees, an affidavit of indigence, and a certified copy of the institutional cashier's statement setting forth the balance in his inmate account, all of which are required by R.C. 2969.25(C). 2013-Ohio-5779, 2013 WL 6858968, ¶ 10-12. The magistrate concluded that compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is mandatory and recommended dismissal. Id. at ¶ 14. Hall objected and filed an affidavit of prior actions, an affidavit of indigence, and an affidavit indicating that he had not filed a grievance in an apparent effort to correct the deficiencies in his original pleadings.
{¶ 3} The court of appeals adopted the magistrate's decision, finding that Hall's belated attempt to cure the defects in his complaint were to no avail, because the documents required by R.C. 2969.25 must be filed with the complaint. Id. at ¶ 4.
{¶ 4} We affirm. The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory and failure to comply with them requires dismissal of an inmate's complaint. State ex rel. Washington v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 87 Ohio St.3d 258, 259, 719 N.E.2d 544 (1999), citing State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 422, 696 N.E.2d 594 (1998). As held by the court of appeals, the affidavit required by R.C. 2969.25(A) must be filed at the time the complaint is filed, and an inmate may not cure the defect by later filings. Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211, 2003-Ohio-5533, 797 N.E.2d 982, ¶ 9 (an inmate's "belated attempt to file the required affidavit does not excuse his noncompliance. See R.C. 2969.25(A), which requires that the affidavit be filed '[a]t the time that an inmate commences a civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee' " [emphasis sic]).
{¶ 5} Nor is this a dismissal on the merits requiring prior notice, as asserted by Hall. Because the failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25 cannot be cured, prior notice of the dismissal would have afforded Hall no recourse.
{¶ 6} Therefore, the court of appeals was correct to dismiss Hall's complaint in mandamus, and we affirm.
Judgment affirmed.
O'Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O'Neill, JJ., concur.