Court Opinion

ID: 9918887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 20:07:54.442222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:28.040589
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State ex rel. Chester v. Lowery, 2024-Ohio-41.]

                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                             ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                  TRUMBULL COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO ex rel.                                      CASE NO. 2023-T-0078
ISAAC CHESTER,

                  Relator,                                 Original Action for Writ of Mandamus

         - vs -

FELEPA LOWERY,

                  Respondent.

                                            PER CURIAM
                                             OPINION

                                       Decided: January 8, 2024
                                     Judgment: Petition dismissed

Isaac Chester, pro se, PID# A791-522, Trumbull Correctional Camp, 5701 Burnett
Street, P.O. Box 640, Leavittsburg, OH 44430 (Relator).

Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, State Office Tower, 30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor,
Columbus, OH 43215 (For Respondent).

PER CURIAM.

        {¶1}      On September 29, 2023, Relator, Isaac Chester, filed a “Complaint for Writ

of Mandamus” in this court. Relator alleged that respondent, Felepa Lowery, as the

Trumbull Correctional Institution’s Prisons Custodian of Inmate-Grievance Records, had

failed to provide legible, verbatim, and complete grievance printouts. Relator sought

grievance printouts for grievances: TCI 000 000 000 118; TCI 000 000 000 417; and TCI

000 000 000 562 along with statutory damages for the unnecessary delay in providing the

requested public records.
        {¶2}   Respondent was successfully served with the complaint on October 12,

2023.

        {¶3}   On October 16, 2023, this Court issued an alternative writ instructing

respondent to move, plead, or otherwise respond to the petition by November 9, 2023.

        {¶4}   On November 6, 2023, relator filed an “Amended Complaint for Writ of

Mandamus.”

        {¶5}   Respondent did not file any responsive pleadings.

        {¶6}   On November 27, 2023, relator filed a “Motion for Peremptory Writ” arguing

that he was entitled to a peremptory writ of mandamus due to respondent’s failure to

answer this Court’s alternative writ. Again, respondent did not file any responsive

pleading.

        {¶7}   “Sua sponte dismissal” of an original action “without notice is warranted

when a complaint is frivolous or the claimant obviously cannot prevail on the facts alleged

in the complaint.” State ex rel. Scott v. Cleveland, 112 Ohio St.3d 324, 2006-Ohio-6573,

859 N.E.2d 923, ¶ 14, citing State ex rel. Duran v. Kelsey, 106 Ohio St.3d 58, 2005-Ohio-

3674, 831 N.E.2d 430, ¶ 7.

        {¶8}   R.C. 2969.25(A) requires that “[a]t the time that an inmate commences a

civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee, the inmate shall file with

the court an affidavit that contains a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil

action that the inmate has filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court.”

        {¶9}   “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. An original action for mandamus

                                              2

Case No. 2023-T-0078
filed in the court of appeals is considered a “civil action” for the purposes of R.C.

2969.25(A). State ex rel. McGrath v. McDonnell, 126 Ohio St.3d 511, 2010-Ohio-4726,

935 N.E.2d 830, ¶ 3; State ex rel. Hawk v. Athens Cty., 106 Ohio St.3d 183, 2005-Ohio-

4383, 833 N.E.2d 296, ¶ 3.

       {¶10} At the time relator filed the present action, he was an inmate at the Trumbull

Correctional Camp. Relator did not attach an affidavit to his complaint as required by R.C.

2969.25(A). Accordingly, we must dismiss relator’s complaint despite respondent’s failure

to participate in this case.

       {¶11} Accordingly, relator’s “Complaint for Writ of Mandamus” is dismissed.

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J., JOHN J. EKLUND, J., ROBERT J. PATTON, J., concur.

                                            3

Case No. 2023-T-0078