Court Opinion

ID: 9959469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-11 18:08:34.932703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:18.756791
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State ex rel. Stone v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 2024-Ohio-1379.]

                               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                    TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State ex rel. Christopher M. Stone,                     :

                 Relator,                               :

v.                                                      :                      No. 23AP-626

Ohio Adult Parole Authority,                            :                   (REGULAR CALENDAR)

                 Respondent.                            :

                                               DECISION

                                       Rendered on April 11, 2024

                 On brief: Christopher M. Stone, pro se.

                 On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Jennifer
                 Driscoll, for respondent.

                                             IN MANDAMUS

BEATTY BLUNT, J.
        {¶ 1} Relator, Christopher M. Stone, has filed this original action seeking a writ of
mandamus ordering respondent, Ohio Adult Parole Authority (“OAPA”), to remove him
from violent offender duties and remove the imposed sanction time for his alleged parole
violations. OAPA has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) based on
relator’s failure to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C).
        {¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals,
this matter was referred to a magistrate. The magistrate considered the action and motion
of OAPA to dismiss and issued a decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law,
which is appended hereto. The magistrate concluded that, based on relator’s failure to
comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C), this court should grant the motion of
OAPA to dismiss relator’s complaint for a writ of mandamus and dismiss relator’s
No. 22AP-252                                                                              2

complaint.
       {¶ 3} No objections have been filed to the magistrate’s decision. “If no timely
objections are filed, the court may adopt a magistrate’s decision, unless it determines that
there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision.”
Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(c).
       {¶ 4} Upon review, we have found no error in the magistrate’s findings of fact or
conclusions of law. Therefore, we adopt the magistrate’s decision as our own, including the
findings of fact and the conclusions of law therein. In accordance with the magistrate’s
decision, we grant OAPA’s motion to dismiss and deny relator’s request for a writ of
mandamus.. We further find moot relator’s motion to transfer this action to the accelerated
calendar.
                                                               Motion to dismiss granted;
                                                                        action dismissed.

                       MENTEL, P.J., and EDELSTEIN, J., concur.
                                  ________________
No. 22AP-252                                                                                3

                                       APPENDIX

                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State ex rel. Christopher M. Stone,           :

              Relator,                        :

v.                                            :                     No. 23AP-626

[Ohio] Adult Parole Authority,                :                (REGULAR CALENDAR)

              Respondent.                     :

                         MAGISTRATE’S DECISION

                             Rendered on December 21, 2023

              Christopher M. Stone, pro se.

              David Yost, Attorney General, and Jennifer A. Driscoll, for
              respondent.

                                      IN MANDAMUS
                                       ON MOTIONS

       {¶ 5} Relator, Christopher M. Stone, has commenced this original action seeking a
writ of mandamus ordering respondent, Ohio Adult Parole Authority, to remove him from
violent offender duties and remove the imposed sanction time for his alleged parole
violations.

Findings of Fact:
       {¶ 6} 1. At the time of the filing of his complaint, relator was an inmate incarcerated
at Lorain Correctional Facility, in Grafton, Ohio.
No. 22AP-252                                                                            4

       {¶ 7} 2. Respondent is a governmental agency responsible for, among other things,
the release of criminal offenders from prison.
       {¶ 8} 3. On October 16, 2023, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus,
requesting that this court order respondent to remove him from violent offender duties and
remove the imposed sanction time for his alleged parole violations. Relator also filed an
affidavit of indigency completed by the institutional cashier, which included financial
activity from May 15 to September 7, 2023. The affidavit noted that the time period being
reported was fewer than the six months required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act
because the period of incarceration was less than six months.
       {¶ 9} 4. On November 14, 2023, relator filed a motion to transfer to accelerated
calendar.
       {¶ 10} 5. On November 20, 2023, respondent filed a motion to dismiss relator’s
complaint based upon noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(C).

Conclusions of Law:
       {¶ 11} The magistrate recommends that this court dismiss this action because
relator has failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25.
              R.C. 2969.25 provides, in pertinent part:
              (C) If an inmate who files a civil action or appeal against a
              government entity or employee seeks a waiver of the
              prepayment of the full filing fees assessed by the court in
              which the action or appeal is filed, the inmate shall file with
              the complaint or notice of appeal an affidavit that the inmate
              is seeking a waiver of the prepayment of the court’s full filing
              fees and an affidavit of indigency. The affidavit of waiver and
              the affidavit of indigency shall contain all of the following:

              (1) A statement that sets forth the balance in the inmate
              account of the inmate for each of the preceding six months, as
              certified by the institutional cashier.

R.C. 2969.25 (C)(1).

       {¶ 12} R.C. 2969.25 requires strict compliance. State ex rel. Swanson v. Ohio Dept.
of Rehab. & Corr., 156 Ohio St.3d 408, 2019-Ohio-1271, ¶ 6. Compliance with the provisions
of R.C. 2969.25 is mandatory and the failure to satisfy the statutory requirements is
No. 22AP-252                                                                                   5

grounds for dismissal of the action. State ex rel. Washington v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.,
87 Ohio St.3d 258 (1999); State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421
(1998). Nothing in R.C. 2969.25 permits substantial compliance. State ex rel. Manns v.
Henson, 119 Ohio St.3d 348, 2008-Ohio-4478, ¶ 4, citing Martin v. Ghee, 10th Dist. No.
01AP-1380, 2002-Ohio-1621. Furthermore, the failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 cannot
be cured at a later date by belatedly attempting to file a complaint affidavit. State ex rel.
Young v. Clipper, 142 Ohio St.3d 318, 2015-Ohio-1351, ¶ 9.
       {¶ 13} A court may dismiss a complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) if, after all
factual allegations in the complaint are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are
made in relator’s favor, it appears beyond doubt that relator could prove no set of facts
entitling him or her to the requested extraordinary writ. State ex rel. Turner v. Houk, 112
Ohio St.3d 561, 2007-Ohio-814, ¶ 5. “Although factual allegations in the complaint are
taken as true, ‘unsupported conclusions of a complaint are not considered admitted * * *
and are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.’ ” Justice v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins.,
10th Dist. No. 98AP-177 (Dec. 24, 1998), quoting State ex rel. Hickman v. Capots, 45 Ohio
St.3d 324 (1989).
       {¶ 14} In the present case, relator failed to file a cashier’s statement with the
information required by R.C. 2969.25. Even considering the time period reported in the
affidavit was fewer than six months (from May 15 to September 7, 2023) due to relator’s
shorter period of incarceration, the statement of relator’s prisoner account did not set forth
the balance in his inmate account for each of the preceding months he had been
incarcerated, as required by R.C. 2969.25. Instead, using form DRC 2257, the institutional
cashier provided the account balance as of September 7, 2023; the total state pay credited
for the report; average monthly state pay for the report period; total funds received from all
sources, excluding state pay, for the report period; and total amount spent in inmate’s
commissary during the same period. None of these amounts set forth the balance in
relator’s inmate account for each of the preceding months he had been incarcerated. The
Supreme Court of Ohio has “affirmed dismissals of inmate actions when the inmate had
failed to submit the account statement required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1).” State ex rel.
Roden v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 159 Ohio St.3d 314, 2020-Ohio-408, ¶ 8. Therefore,
relator’s failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) requires dismissal. Even if the provided
No. 22AP-252                                                                               6

amounts could be used to calculate a monthly average, the cashier’s statement would be
insufficient. See State ex rel. Guyton v. Jones, 9th Dist. No. 29893, 2021-Ohio-430, ¶ 4
(although inmate’s statement from the prison cashier provides a six-month average, it does
not provide the balance in the inmate account for each of the six months preceding his
petition before the court; R.C. 2969.25(C) does not permit substantial compliance); State
ex rel. Cleavenger v. O’Brien, 9th Dist. No. 29723, 2020-Ohio-3010, ¶ 4 (although inmate’s
affidavit provides his total deposits, average monthly deposit, and average first-day
balance, it does not provide the balance in the inmate account for each of the six months
preceding his petition before this court; thus, it does not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C));
State ex rel. Clark v. Serrott, 10th Dist. No. 16AP-411, 2017-Ohio-1139, ¶ 12 (document
purporting to show the average deposits and balances for the preceding six months does
not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C)).
       {¶ 15} Accordingly, it is the magistrate’s decision that, based upon relator’s failure
to comply with the mandatory filing requirements of R.C. 2969.25, this court should grant
respondent’s motion to dismiss relator’s complaint for writ of mandamus. Furthermore,
given this disposition, relator’s motion to transfer the case to the accelerated calendar is
denied as moot.

                                              /S/ MAGISTRATE
                                              THOMAS W. SCHOLL III

                              NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

              Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) provides that a party shall not assign as
              error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or
              legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a
              finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii),
              unless the party timely and specifically objects to that factual
              finding or legal conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b). A
              party may file written objections to the magistrate’s decision
              within fourteen days of the filing of the decision.