Court Opinion

ID: 9954701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 19:12:03.251367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:50.395917
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Morris v. Keith, 2024-Ohio-1143.]

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                   TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Leon A. Morris, Sr.,                                :

                 Relator,                           :

v.                                                  :                No. 23AP-150

Karl Keith, Montgomery County                       :             (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Auditor et al.,
                                                    :
                 Respondents.
                                                    :

                                             D E C I S I O N

                                     Rendered on March 26, 2024

                 On brief: Leon A. Morris, Sr., pro se.

                 On brief: Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County
                 Prosecuting Attorney, and Nathaniel S. Peterson, for
                 respondents.

                                             IN MANDAMUS

JAMISON, J.
        {¶ 1} Relator, Leon A. Morris, Sr., commenced this original action seeking a writ of
mandamus ordering respondents, Karl Keith, Montgomery County Auditor; B. Joyce,
assistant warden; L. Shuler, inspector; M. Vanbuskirk, assoc. warden; Timothy Barrs,
parole officer; Isabella Guzman, SB Administrator; Carolyn Rice, Montgomery County
Treasurer; and Michael Carvajal, Director of B.O.P., to comply with his public records
request pursuant to R.C. 149.43.
        {¶ 2} This matter was referred to a magistrate of this court pursuant to Civ.R. 53
and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals. The magistrate issued the
appended decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law. The magistrate
No. 23AP-150                                                                                2

determined that relator failed to submit either a cashier’s statement that fully complied
with R.C. 2969.25(C), or an affidavit of prior civil actions that fully complied with R.C.
2969.25(A). The magistrate further found relator failed to follow R.C. 2731.04 by not
naming the state of Ohio on the relation in his petition, and by not seeking leave to amend
his complaint to name the state of Ohio. Accordingly, the magistrate recommended this
court dismiss this action, sua sponte, due to the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Relator
has not filed an objection to the magistrate’s decision.
          {¶ 3} Upon review, we find there is no error of law or other defect evident on the
face of the magistrate’s decision. See Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(4)(c). Accordingly, we adopt the
magistrate’s decision as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law
contained therein. In accordance with the magistrate’s decision, we sua sponte dismiss this
action.
                                                                             Case dismissed.

                            MENTEL, P.J., and BOGGS, J., concur.
No. 23AP-150                                                                         3

                                     APPENDIX
                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Leon A. Morris, Sr.,                         :

              Relator,                       :

v.                                           :                  No. 23AP-150

Karl Keith, Montgomery County                :               (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Auditor et al.,
                                             :
              Respondents.
                                             :

                         MAGISTRATE’S DECISION

                              Rendered on October 18, 2023

              Leon A. Morris, Sr., pro se.

              Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Prosecuting Attorney, and Nathaniel S.
              Peterson, for respondents.

                                    IN MANDAMUS
                                     ON MOTIONS

       {¶ 4} Relator, Leon A. Morris, Sr., has commenced this original action seeking a
writ of mandamus ordering respondents, Karl Keith, Montgomery County Auditor;
B. Joyce, assistant warden; L. Shuler, inspector; M. Vanbuskirk, assoc. warden; Timothy
Barrs, parole officer; Isabella Guzman, SB Administrator; Carolyn Rice, Montgomery
County Treasurer; and Michael Carvajal, Director of B.O.P., to comply with his public
records request pursuant to R.C. 149.43.
No. 23AP-150                                                                                4

Findings of Fact:
       {¶ 5} 1. At the time of the filing of his petition, relator was an inmate incarcerated
at North Central Correctional Institution.
       {¶ 6} 2. On March 7, 2023, relator filed the instant mandamus action in his own
name asking this court to order the respondents to comply with his public records request.
       {¶ 7} 3. At the time relator filed his petition for writ of mandamus, relator filed the
following: (1) a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, to which he attached an inmate
financial statement showing a running balance of his inmate account; (2) a notarized
affidavit of indigency, which provided his account balance, total state pay, average monthly
state pay, total funds received from all sources, and total amount spent in the commissary
for the preceding six months; and (3) a notarized affidavit of prior civil actions for the
proceeding five years, which listed seven cases with associated case numbers and the lead
defendant’s name, followed by “et al.”
       {¶ 8} 4. Relator and several respondents subsequently filed a number of motions,
the specifics of which are not pertinent to the present decision.
Conclusions of Law:
       {¶ 9} The magistrate recommends that this court sua sponte dismiss this action
because relator has failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25.
              R.C. 2969.25 provides, in pertinent part:
              (A) At 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. The
              affidavit shall include all of the following for each of those civil
              actions or appeals:

              (1) A brief description of the nature of the civil action or
              appeal;

              (2) The case name, case number, and the court in which the
              civil action or appeal was brought;

              (3) The name of each party to the civil action or appeal;
No. 23AP-150                                                                               5

              (4) The outcome of the civil action or appeal, including
              whether the court dismissed the civil action or appeal as
              frivolous or malicious under state or federal law or rule of
              court, whether the court made an award against the inmate or
              the inmate’s counsel of record for frivolous conduct under
              section 2323.51 of the Revised Code, another statute, or a rule
              of court, and, if the court so dismissed the action or appeal or
              made an award of that nature, the date of the final order
              affirming the dismissal or award.

              ***

              (C) If an inmate who files a civil action or appeal against a
              government entity or employee seeks a waiver of the
              prepayment of the full filing fees assessed by the court in
              which the action or appeal is filed, the inmate shall file with
              the complaint or notice of appeal an affidavit that the inmate
              is seeking a waiver of the prepayment of the court’s full filing
              fees and an affidavit of indigency. The affidavit of waiver and
              the affidavit of indigency shall contain all of the following:

              (1) 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 (A)(1) through (4) and (C)(1) and (2).
       {¶ 10} R.C. 2969.25 requires strict compliance. State ex rel. Swanson v. Ohio Dept.
of Rehab. & Corr., 156 Ohio St.3d 408, 2019-Ohio-1271, ¶ 6. Compliance with the provisions
of R.C. 2969.25 is mandatory and the failure to satisfy the statutory requirements is
grounds for dismissal of the action. State ex rel. Washington v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.,
87 Ohio St.3d 258 (1999); State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421
(1998). Nothing in R.C. 2969.25 permits substantial compliance. State ex rel. Manns v.
Henson, 119 Ohio St.3d 348, 2008-Ohio-4478, ¶ 4, citing Martin v. Ghee, 10th Dist. No.
01AP-1380, 2002-Ohio-1621. Furthermore, the failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 cannot
be cured at a later date by belatedly attempting to file a complaint affidavit. State ex rel.
Young v. Clipper, 142 Ohio St.3d 318, 2015-Ohio-1351, ¶ 9.
       {¶ 11} In the present case, a review of relator’s affidavit filed with his petition in
mandamus reveals that relator has failed to file an affidavit of prior actions that contains
all of the information required by R.C. 2969.25(A). Relator’s affidavit of prior actions does
No. 23AP-150                                                                                 6

not comply with the requirement in R.C. 2969.25(A)(1) that the affidavit contain a brief
description of the nature of the civil action. See, e.g., State ex rel. Bey v. [Ohio] Bur. of
Sentence Computation, 10th Dist. No. 19AP-46, 2021-Ohio-70, ¶ 6-11 (dismissal of
mandamus action appropriate when the affidavit indicated the general type of action filed
in most of the cases, e.g., original action in mandamus or writ of habeas corpus, but it did
not actually describe the nature of the actions, such as describing that the cases are original
actions in mandamus to compel compliance with a public records request or to compel the
judge to vacate relator’s guilty pleas to the offense of murder). Relator’s affidavit contains
no description of the nature of his prior actions, even less than what was found insufficient
in Bey. Relator provides only partial case names and case numbers in his affidavit, which is
clearly deficient under the requirements in R.C. 2969.25(A)(1).
       {¶ 12} Furthermore, the affidavit in the present case does not include the court in
which the actions were brought, as required by R.C. 2969.25(A)(2); the name of each party,
as required by R.C. 2969.25(A)(3); or the outcome of the actions, as required by R.C.
2969.25(A)(4). Therefore, dismissal of relator’s action is also warranted on these bases. See
State ex rel. Russell v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 161 Ohio St.3d 312, 2020-Ohio-4788,
¶ 8 (affidavit was deficient because it did not identify the courts in which the cases were
brought or the names of all of the parties); Taylor v. Harris, 159 Ohio St.3d 564, 2020-
Ohio-1046, ¶ 10 (although the inmate filed an affidavit listing the civil actions that he had
filed in the previous five years, the failure to provide the courts in which they were brought
and the outcome of each case, as well as other deficiencies, rendered the petition fatally
defective under R.C. 2969.25(A)); Bey at ¶ 9 (affidavit wholly deficient because it was
missing the name of the opposing party in the cases listed).
       {¶ 13} Relator also failed to file a cashier’s statement with the information required
by R.C. 2969.25. Relator did not file a statement of his prisoner account that sets forth the
balance in his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the
institutional cashier. Instead, using form DRC 2257, the institutional cashier provided the
following: “Account Balance as of 02/17/2023”; “Total state pay credited for the report
period”; “Average monthly state pay for the report period”; “Total funds received from all
sources, excluding state pay, for the report period”; and “Total amount spent in inmate’s
commissary during the same period.” None of these amounts set forth the balance in
No. 23AP-150                                                                               7

relator’s inmate account for each of the preceding six months. The Supreme Court of Ohio
has “affirmed dismissals of inmate actions when the inmate had failed to submit the
account statement required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1).” State ex rel. Roden v. Ohio Dept. of
Rehab. & Corr., 159 Ohio St.3d 314, 2020-Ohio-408, ¶ 8. Therefore, relator’s failure to
comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) requires dismissal. Even if the provided amounts could be
used to calculate a six-month monthly average, the cashier’s statement would be
insufficient. See State ex rel. Guyton v. Jones, 9th Dist. No. 29893, 2021-Ohio-430, ¶ 4
(although inmate’s statement from the prison cashier provides a six-month average, it does
not provide the balance in the inmate account for each of the six months preceding his
petition before the court; R.C. 2969.25(C) does not permit substantial compliance); State
ex rel. Cleavenger v. O’Brien, 9th Dist. No. 29723, 2020-Ohio-3010, ¶ 4 (although inmate’s
affidavit provides his total deposits, average monthly deposit, and average first-day
balance, it does not provide the balance in the inmate account for each of the six months
preceding his petition before this court; thus, it does not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C));
State ex rel. Clark v. Serrott, 10th Dist. No. 16AP-411, 2017-Ohio-1139, ¶ 12 (document
purporting to show the average deposits and balances for the preceding six months does
not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C)).
       {¶ 14} In addition, R.C. 2731.04 provides that an “[a]pplication for the writ of
mandamus must be * * * in the name of the state on the relation of the person applying.”
Although the failure to name the State of Ohio on the relation in a petition is grounds for
dismissal, see Blankenship v. Blackwell, 103 Ohio St.3d 567, 2004-Ohio-5596, ¶ 35-36, a
relator may seek leave to amend the complaint to comply with R.C. 2731.04. Id. Here,
relator did not follow R.C. 2731.04 when he failed to name the State of Ohio on the relation
in his petition, and relator has not sought leave to amend his complaint to name the State
of Ohio on the relation of relator.
       {¶ 15} Accordingly, it is the magistrate’s decision that, based upon relator’s failure
to comply with the mandatory filing requirements of R.C. 2969.25 and 2731.04, this court
should sua sponte dismiss relator’s complaint for writ of mandamus. All pending motions
are denied as moot.
                                              /S/ MAGISTRATE
                                               THOMAS W. SCHOLL III
No. 23AP-150                                                                    8

                            NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

           Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) provides that a party shall not assign as
           error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or
           legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a
           finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii),
           unless the party timely and specifically objects to that factual
           finding or legal conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b). A
           party may file written objections to the magistrate’s decision
           within fourteen days of the filing of the decision.