Case Name: The State ex rel. Sheets, Appellant, v. Chief of Police, Cedar Point Police Department, Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2015-08-20
Citations: 143 Ohio St. 3d 473
Docket Number: No. 2014-2166
Parties: The State ex rel. Sheets, Appellant, v. Chief of Police, Cedar Point Police Department, Appellee.
Judges: O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 143
Pages: 473–474

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Sheets, Appellant, v. Chief of Police, Cedar Point Police Department, Appellee.
[Cite as State ex rel. Sheets v. Chief of Police, Cedar Point Police Dept., 143 Ohio St.3d 473, 2015-Ohio-3309.]
(No. 2014-2166
Submitted May 5, 2015
Decided August 20, 2015.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} We reverse the dismissal of this case in which appellant, Daniel Sheets, a federal inmate, made a public-records request of appellee, the chief of police of the Cedar Point Police Department. Sheets sued in mandamus on November 7, 2014, in the Sixth District Court of Appeals, alleging that respondent failed to provide the requested records.
{¶ 2} Appellee filed no response to the complaint, but on December 2, 2014, the court of appeals nevertheless dismissed the case, finding that Sheets failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C)(2), which requires that an inmate's affidavit of indigency in a suit against a government entity or employee contain a statement of the inmate's assets.
{¶ 3} Sheets argues in his brief that R.C. 2969.25(C) should not apply to him because he is not filing a civil action against a government entity or employee. However, Sheets also asserts in his complaint that appellee is "a governmental employee," that he "performs a governmental function," and that he "operates on behalf of the state." Sheets's arguments are therefore without merit.
{¶ 4} However, the definition of "inmate" for purposes of R.C. 2969.25 is "a person who is in actual confinement in a state correctional institution." (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2969.21(D). The definition does not include persons in confinement in federal prison. Id. Sheets is an inmate in a federal prison, not a state prison. For that reason, the court of appeals erred in dismissing Sheets's complaint for failing to comply with R.C. 2969.25.
Daniel Sheets, pro se.
{¶ 5} We therefore reverse the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
O'Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, and O'Neill, JJ., concur.
Lanzinger, J., concurs in judgment only.