Court Opinion

ID: 9389752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 13:06:21.221871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:29.391112
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State ex rel. Brooks v. Baker Ross, 2023-Ohio-1349.]

 STATE OF OHIO                    )                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                  )ss:                          NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
 COUNTY OF SUMMIT                 )

 STATE EX REL. CARL C. BROOKS                                   C.A. No. 30519

        Relator

        v.

 JUDGE SUSAN BAKER ROSS
                                                                ORIGINAL ACTION IN
        Respondent                                              PROCEDENDO

Dated: April 26, 2023

        PER CURIAM.

        {¶1}      Relator, Carl C. Brooks, has petitioned this Court for a writ of procedendo to

compel Respondent, Judge Susan Baker Ross, to rule on his “Motion for New Trial and Jury

Verdict Forms” pending in Mr. Brooks’ underlying case. Judge Baker Ross has moved to dismiss

the complaint as moot because she has ruled on the motion. Because Mr. Brooks’ did not comply

with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25, this Court must dismiss this action.

        {¶2}      R.C. 2969.25 sets forth specific filing requirements for inmates who file a civil

action against a government employee or entity. Judge Baker Ross is a government employee and

Mr. Brooks, incarcerated in the Allen Correctional Institution, is an inmate. R.C. 2969.21(C) and

(D). A case must be dismissed if an inmate fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of

R.C. 2969.25 in the commencement of the action. State ex rel. Graham v. Findlay Mun. Court,

106 Ohio St.3d 63, 2005-Ohio-3671, ¶ 6 (“The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and

failure to comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.”).
                                                                                        C.A. No. 30519
                                                                                            Page 2 of 2

       {¶3}    Mr. Brooks did not pay the cost deposit required by this Court’s Local Rules. He

also failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), which sets forth specific requirements for an inmate

who seeks to proceed without paying the cost deposit. Mr. Brooks filed a motion to proceed

without paying the cost deposit, but his affidavit was not notarized. He also failed to file a

statement of his prisoner trust account that sets forth the balance in his inmate account for each of

the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier. R.C. 2969.25(C).

       {¶4}    Because Mr. Brooks did not comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C.

2969.25, the case is dismissed. Costs taxed to Mr. Brooks.

       {¶5}    The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default notice

of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See Civ.R. 58(B).

                                                      JENNIFER L. HENSAL
                                                      FOR THE COURT

CARR, J.
STEVENSON, J.
CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

CARL C. BROOKS, Pro Se, Relator.

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and MARRETT W. HANNA, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent.