Court Opinion

ID: 9889722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 13:07:47.01878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:19.536621
License: Public Domain

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as
Grinnell v. Cool, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3672.]

                                        NOTICE
     This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an
     advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to
     promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65
     South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other
     formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before
     the opinion is published.

                         SLIP OPINION NO. 2023-OHIO-3672
             GRINNELL , APPELLANT, v. COOL, WARDEN, APPELLEE.
  [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
     may be cited as Grinnell v. Cool, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3672.]
Habeas corpus—Petitioner failed to comply with requirements of R.C.
        2969.25(C)—Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing petition affirmed—
        Warden’s request for a vexatious-litigator declaration denied.
   (No. 2023-0253—Submitted August 22, 2023—Decided October 11, 2023.)
        APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, No. 22CA34.
                                 __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 1} Appellant, Timothy Grinnell, a prison inmate, filed a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus in the Fourth District Court of Appeals arguing that the trial court
in which he was convicted lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The Fourth District
dismissed the petition. Grinnell appeals to this court. We affirm.
                               SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

                                      Background
         {¶ 2} In 1994, the Scioto County grand jury indicted Grinnell on two counts
of aggravated murder. The charges arose from Grinnell’s involvement in the
Lucasville prison riot at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in April 1993. See
State v. Grinnell, 112 Ohio App.3d 124, 678 N.E.2d 231 (10th Dist.1996). Venue
was changed from Scioto County to Franklin County, and a Franklin County jury
found Grinnell guilty of all charges. The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
sentenced Grinnell to two concurrent life sentences with parole eligibility after 20
years.
         {¶ 3} In 2022, Grinnell filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the
Fourth District against Warden William Cool, arguing that the trial court lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction because the criminal charges against him were not
prosecuted by the Scioto County prosecuting attorney, allegedly in violation of R.C.
2931.29. Grinnell also argued that the trial court failed to properly journalize his
sentencing entry and that the trial judge was not properly assigned to his case. The
Fourth District dismissed the petition based on Grinnell’s failure to comply with R.C.
2969.25(C), which required Grinnell to file with his petition a certified statement
setting forth the balance in his inmate account for each of the preceding six months.
The Fourth District also concluded that Grinnell’s claim was barred under the
doctrine of res judicata and that the petition failed because Grinnell had an adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of the law.
         {¶ 4} Grinnell appeals to this court as of right.
                                        Analysis
                        Failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C)
         {¶ 5} When an inmate files a civil action against a government employee in
a court of appeals and seeks a waiver of the prepayment of the filing fees, the inmate
must file with the complaint an affidavit of indigency and an affidavit stating that he
is seeking a waiver. R.C. 2969.25(C). These filings must include, among other

                                            2
                                  January Term, 2023

things, a statement setting 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).
        {¶ 6} Grinnell filed a motion seeking a waiver of the prepayment of filing
fees and an affidavit declaring his indigency. He included with his filing a statement
of the balance in his inmate account. The Fourth District held that the statement was
deficient because “it only provide[d] the account balance as of May 16, 2022.” But
the record shows that Grinnell filed a statement showing the balance of his account
from January 1, 2022, to July 11, 2022. The Fourth District therefore erred in
concluding that Grinnell’s statement of account failed to set forth the balance for a
six-month period.
        {¶ 7} But Grinnell acknowledges that his filing was deficient because the
statement of account was not certified by the institutional cashier. We have held that
compliance with R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) is mandatory. State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99
Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5. We affirm the judgment of
the court of appeals because Grinnell failed to submit a certified statement of his
inmate account as required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1).
             The warden’s request for a vexatious-litigator declaration
        {¶ 8} In his merit brief, the warden asks this court to declare Grinnell a
vexatious litigator. S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(A) provides that this court may sanction
persons who file “an appeal or other action [that] is frivolous or is prosecuted for
delay, harassment, or any other improper purpose.”              “If a party habitually,
persistently, and without reasonable cause engages in frivolous conduct under
division (A),” we may declare such person a vexatious litigator. S.Ct.Prac.R.
4.03(B). The warden has not shown that Grinnell’s conduct is so habitual and
persistent that it warrants labeling him a vexatious litigator at this time.

                                            3
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

                                    Conclusion
        {¶ 9} We affirm the Fourth District’s judgment because Grinnell failed to
comply with R.C. 2969.25(C). We deny the warden’s request to declare Grinnell a
vexatious litigator.
                                                             Judgment affirmed.
        KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER,
and DETERS, JJ., concur.
                              _________________
        Timothy Grinnell, pro se.
        Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Stephanie L. Watson, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
                              _________________

                                        4