Court Opinion

ID: 9929990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-05 20:09:08.396302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:01:57.941069
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State ex rel. Chester v. Booth, 2024-Ohio-298.]

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

STATE OF OHIO ex rel.                                      CASE NO. 2023-T-0082
ISAAC CHESTER,

                  Relator,                                 Original Action for Writ of Mandamus

         - vs -

GLEN BOOTH,

                  Respondent.

                                            PER CURIAM
                                             OPINION

                                      Decided: January 29, 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 and John H. Bates, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Justice
Section, 30 East Broad Street, 23rd Floor, Columbus, OH 43215 (For Respondent).

PER CURIAM.

        {¶1}      On October 23, 2023, Relator, Isaac Chester, filed a Complaint for Writ of

Mandamus. Relator alleged that Respondent, Glen Booth, the Trumbull Correctional

Institute’s Public Information Officer, had failed to comply with his public records request

and provide the Trumbull Correctional Camp’s budget, payroll, staff, and job assignments.

        {¶2}      On December 6, 2023, Respondent moved to dismiss this action. Relator

then moved to dismiss Respondent’s motion to dismiss.
       {¶3}   For the following reasons, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted.

Relator’s motion is denied.

       {¶4}   Respondent asserts several grounds for dismissal. Many of his assertions

require factual information and determinations that are premature and not appropriate to

raise in a motion to dismiss. We therefore do not render judgment on those assertions.

       {¶5}   Respondent first argues that Relator failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A)

and (C).

       {¶6}   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.”

       {¶7}      R.C. 2969.25(C) requires that an inmate who seeks a waiver of the

prepayment of filing fees shall also file a statement, certified by the institutional cashier,

setting forth the balance of his inmate account for the six months previous to the filing of

the complaint.

       {¶8}   “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

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.

                                              2

Case No. 2023-T-0082
       {¶9}   Relator did not attach an affidavit of previous civil actions or appeals to his

complaint as required by R.C. 2969.25(A). Although Relator filed a statement setting forth

his inmate account balance for the six months prior to filing his complaint, the institutional

cashier did not certify the statement as required by R.C. 2969.25(C).              Accordingly,

Relator’s complaint is dismissed.

       {¶10} Respondent also asserts that Relator did not comply with R.C. 2731.04.

       {¶11} R.C. 2731.04 provides: “Application for the writ of mandamus must be by

petition, in the name of the state on the relation of the person applying, and verified by

affidavit.” Relator did not initially verify his petition for a writ of mandamus by affidavit.

       {¶12} The failure to verify the petition by affidavit at the time of filing as provided

in R.C. 2731.04 has been “displaced by Civ.R. 11.” State ex rel. Madison v. Cotner, 66

Ohio St.2d 448, 450, 423 N.E.2d 72 (1981). Civ.R. 11 provides in part: “Except as

otherwise specifically provided by these rules, pleadings need not be verified or

accompanied by affidavit.” This portion of Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is not well

taken and is not part of our basis for dismissal.

       {¶13} Respondent's motion to dismiss is granted for failure to comply with R.C.

2969.25(A) and (C). Relator’s motion to dismiss Respondent’s motion to dismiss is

denied. Relator's “Complaint for Writ of Mandamus” is dismissed.

MATT LYNCH, J., JOHN J. EKLUND, J., ROBERT J. PATTON, J., concur.

                                               3

Case No. 2023-T-0082