Court Opinion

ID: 9892347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 17:11:18.678045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:45.314507
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State ex rel. Woodson v. Black, 2023-Ohio-3823.]

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

ROZELL R. WOODSON
                                                            C.A. No.   23CA012033
        Petitioner

        v.
                                                            ORIGINAL ACTION IN
JENNIFER BLACK, WARDEN                                      HABEAS CORPUS

        Respondent

Dated: October 23, 2023

        PER CURIAM.

        {¶1}     Relator, Rozell R. Woodson, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking

an order to Respondent, Warden Jennifer Black, to release him from custody. Because Mr.

Woodson’s petition does 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. Warden Black is a government employee and

Mr. Woodson, incarcerated in the Lorain Correctional Institution, is an inmate. R.C. 2969.21(C)

and (D). A case must be dismissed if the 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.”). Mr. Woodson failed to

comply with R.C. 2969.25(C).
                                                                                  C.A. No. 23CA012033
                                                                                             Page 2 of 3

       {¶3}      An inmate seeking the waiver of filing fees, as Mr. Woodson is here, must file an

affidavit of indigency. The affidavit must include, among other things, “[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). The Ohio Supreme Court has

construed these words strictly: an affidavit that “does not include a statement setting forth the

balance in [an] inmate account for each of the preceding six months” fails to comply with R.C.

2969.25(C)(1). (emphasis sic.) State ex rel. Roden v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 159 Ohio

St.3d 314, 2020-Ohio-408, ¶ 6.

       {¶4}      Mr. Woodson filed a “Motion to Proceed Indigent” in which he asked for a waiver

of the prepayment of the filing fees. The motion states that it includes an affidavit that sets forth

the balance of his inmate account for the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional

cashier. What Mr. Woodson filed did not set forth the balance for the preceding six months, but

he did file two documents related to his inmate account. The first is a combined statement of the

balance of his account, certified by the institutional cashier, and affidavit of indigency. The second

is a statement of the inmate’s financial record, also certified by the institutional cashier. Both

cashier documents include starting and ending balances, one for a six-month period and the other

for a shorter period. But neither statement complies with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C).

       {¶5}      The statements do not reflect the balance of the inmate account for each of the

preceding six months, as required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). “‘R.C. 2969.25(C) does not permit

substantial compliance[;]’” it requires strict adherence by the filing inmate. Id. at ¶ 8, citing State

ex rel. Neil v. French, 153 Ohio St.3d 271, 2018-Ohio-2692, ¶ 7. Therefore, Mr. Woodson’s

“Motion to Proceed Indigent” does not comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C.

2969.25(C)(1).
                                                                                C.A. No. 23CA012033
                                                                                           Page 3 of 3

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

2969.25, this case is dismissed. Costs are taxed to Mr. Woodson. 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. Civ.R. 58.

                                                     JENNIFER L. HENSAL
                                                     FOR THE COURT

CARR, J.
FLAGG LANZINGER, J.
CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

ROZELL R. WOODSON, Pro se, Relator.