Court Opinion

ID: 9882757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:19:37.736785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:53.443591
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State ex rel Sanders v. O'Brien, 2023-Ohio-3614.]

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

JC SANDERS

          Relator
                                                             C.A. No.   30876
          v.

THE HONORABLE JUDGE TAMMY
O[‘]BRIEN, JUDGE, SUMMIT COUNTY                              ORIGINAL ACTION IN
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ET AL.                                HABEAS CORPUS

          Respondents

Dated: October 4, 2023

          PER CURIAM.

          {¶1}      Petitioner, JC Sanders, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

seeking an order directing Respondents, Judge Tammy O’Brien, all of the judges of the

Summit County Common Pleas, and the Summit County Prosecutor’s Office, to release

him from custody and pay him money damages. Because Mr. Sanders’ 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. All of the named respondents are government

employees and Mr. Sanders, incarcerated in the Summit County Jail, 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.
                                                                                    C.A. No. 30876
                                                                                        Page 2 of 3

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. Sanders failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C).

       {¶3}    An inmate seeking waiver of filing fees, as Mr. Sanders 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. Sanders filed two additional documents with his petition. He filed a Motion

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in which he asked for a waiver of the prepayment of the filing fees.

The motion states that he has also filed a separate Affidavit of Indigency. The other document

he filed with his petition is a Financial Disclosure Form. It includes Mr. Sanders’ name, home

address, and all of the assets and expenses are complete with “0” for the amount. The form is

signed by Mr. Sanders, but it is not notarized.

       {¶5}    Mr. Sanders did not file a statement of his prisoner trust account, as required by

R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). He also did not file a notarized affidavit of indigency. “‘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. Sanders’ Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis does not comply with the mandatory

requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C)(1).
                                                                                      C.A. No. 30876
                                                                                          Page 3 of 3

       {¶6}    Finally, it appears that Mr. Sanders also failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A)

because he did not file an affidavit of his prior civil actions. This Court has determined that Mr.

Sanders did not comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C), which requires

this case to be dismissed, so we need not consider whether he also failed to comply with R.C.

2969.25(A).

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

2969.25, this case is dismissed. Costs are taxed to Mr. Sanders. 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

STEVENSON, J.
FLAGG LANZINGER, J.
CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

JC SANDERS, Relator.