Court Opinion

ID: 9379976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 19:07:49.221834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:02.697335
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State ex rel. Williams v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 2023-Ohio-850.]

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                   TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

[State ex rel.] Hosie Williams,                         :

                 Relator,                               :

v.                                                      :                        No. 22AP-662

Ohio Adult Parole Authority,                            :                     (REGULAR CALENDAR)

                 Respondent.                            :

                                            D E C I S I O N

                                      Rendered on March 16, 2023

                 On brief: Hosie Williams, pro se.

                 On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and George Horvath,
                 for respondent.

                                             IN MANDAMUS

BOGGS, J.

        {¶ 1} Relator, Hosie Williams, has filed an original action for a writ of mandamus,
alleging that respondent, the Ohio Adult Parole Authority ("OAPA"), violated his right to
due process by, after revoking Williams's judicial release, imposing a sentence greater than
that originally imposed by the sentencing court and by having him serve a sentence that
extended beyond his judicially imposed sentence. Williams states that the purpose of this
action is "to stop and prevent the [OAPA] and its parole officers from continuing their
postrelease control" on him. (Nov. 1, 2022 Compl. at 2.) When he filed his complaint,
Williams was an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. OAPA has filed a
motion to dismiss, arguing in part that Williams failed to comply with the mandatory
requirements set out in R.C. 2969.25 that apply to an inmate who commences a civil action
against a governmental entity or employee.
No. 22AP-662                                                                                 2

       {¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals,
this matter was referred to a magistrate, who issued a decision containing findings of fact
and conclusions of law. That decision is appended hereto. Although the magistrate's
decision does not mention OAPA's motion to dismiss, the magistrate nevertheless
recommends that we dismiss Williams's complaint based on Williams's failure to comply
with the mandatory filing requirements of R.C. 2969.25—one of the grounds for dismissal
that OAPA argues in its motion. We modify the magistrate's decision to reflect notice of
OAPA's motion to dismiss.
       {¶ 3} Williams filed what is purported to be an objection to the magistrate's
decision, but this court struck that filing because it failed to state grounds for objection to
the magistrate's decision with particularity, as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(ii). We
therefore proceed as if no timely objections have been filed. If no timely objections to a
magistrate’s decision are filed, "the court may adopt [the] magistrate's decision, unless it
determines that there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the
magistrate's decision." Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(c).
       {¶ 4} Our review of the magistrate's decision, as modified, reveals no error of law
or other evident defect. The magistrate found that Williams failed to comply with the
mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C). As to R.C. 2969.25(A), Williams did
not file with his complaint "an affidavit that contains a description of each civil action or
appeal of a civil action that [he] has filed in the previous five years in any state or federal
court." Nor did Williams file a statement that he has not filed any such civil actions or
appeals. See Kachermeyer v. Tolson, 10th Dist. No. 01AP-1186, 2002 Ohio App.LEXIS
1999, *10 (April 30, 2002) (a relator who has not filed any actions subject to disclosure
under R.C. 2969.25(A) should file a written affirmation of that fact). As to R.C. 2969.25(C),
Williams did not file an affidavit stating that he was seeking a waiver of prepayment of the
court's filing fees or an affidavit of indigency. An inmate’s failure to strictly comply with
the requirements of R.C. 2969.25 is grounds for dismissal. Dunkle v. Hill, 165 Ohio St.3d
580, 2021-Ohio-3835, ¶ 6 (affirming dismissal of petition in habeas corpus where relator
did not comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C)), citing State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole
Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 422 (1998). We agree with the magistrate's conclusion that
Williams's failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 justifies dismissal of Williams's complaint.
No. 22AP-662                                                                           3

      {¶ 5} Upon our independent review, we modify the magistrate's decision to reflect
OAPA's filing of a motion to dismiss, but we otherwise adopt the magistrate's findings of
facts and conclusions of law. In accordance with that modified decision, we grant OAPA's
motion to dismiss.
                                                                       Action dismissed.
                         DORRIAN and LELAND, JJ., concur.
No. 22AP-662                                                                           4

                                     APPENDIX
                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

[State ex rel.] Hosie Williams,             :

              Relator,                      :

v.                                          :                    No. 22AP-662

Ohio Adult Parole Authority,                :              (REGULAR CALENDAR)

              Respondent.                   :

                          MAGISTRATE'S DECISION

                             Rendered on November 29, 2022

              Hosie Williams, pro se.

              Dave Yost, Attorney General, and George Horvath, for
              respondent.

                                    IN MANDAMUS
                               ON SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL

       {¶ 6} Relator, Hosie Williams, has filed this original action requesting that this
court issue a writ of mandamus, alleging that respondent, Ohio Adult Parole Authority,
violated his due process rights by imposing a greater sentence than the original sentence
after revoking judicial release and by having him serve a sentence past his judicially
imposed sentence, and violated numerous other constitutional rights in vague or
unspecified ways.
No. 22AP-662                                                                                   5

Findings of Fact:
       {¶ 7} 1. At the time of the filing of his complaint, relator was an inmate incarcerated
at Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, in Lucasville, Ohio.
       {¶ 8} 2. Respondent is a governmental agency responsible for, among other things,
the release of criminal offenders from prison.
       {¶ 9} 3. On November 1, 2022, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus,
alleging that respondent violated his due process rights by imposing a greater sentence than
the original sentence after revoking judicial release and by having him serve a sentence past
his judicially imposed sentence, and violated numerous other constitutional rights in vague
or unspecified ways. Relator brought the complaint in his own name, did not pay the court
filing fee, and did not file an affidavit of prior civil actions, an affidavit for waiver of the
court filing fee, or affidavit of indigency.
       {¶ 10} 4. On November 17, 2022, relator filed what could be construed as an
amended complaint with a request for oral argument, with essentially the same allegations
as those pled in the original complaint. Relator again styled the complaint using his own
name as relator.

Conclusions of Law:
       {¶ 11} The magistrate recommends that this court sua sponte dismiss relator's
petition for writ of mandamus.
       {¶ 12} In order for this court to issue a writ of mandamus, a relator must ordinarily
show a clear legal right to the relief sought, a clear legal duty on the part of the respondent
to provide such relief, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.
State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967). A relator bears the burden
of persuasion to show entitlement to a writ of mandamus by clear and convincing evidence.
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020-Ohio-5371,
¶ 26. "Clear and convincing evidence" is a measure or degree of proof that is more than a
preponderance of evidence, but it does not extend the degree of certainty beyond a
reasonable doubt as required in a criminal case; clear and convincing evidence produces in
the trier of fact's mind a firm belief of the fact sought to be established. State ex rel. Miller
v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 136 Ohio St.3d 350, 2013-Ohio-3720, ¶ 14.
No. 22AP-662                                                                               6

       {¶ 13} R.C. 2969.25(A) requires an inmate to file, at the time he commences a civil
action against a governmental entity or employee, an affidavit listing each civil action or
appeal of a civil action that he filed in the past five years. R.C. 2969.25(A) provides:
              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;

              (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;

              (2) A statement that sets forth all other cash and things of
              value owned by the inmate at that time.
No. 22AP-662                                                                                7

R.C. 2969.25 (A)(1) through (4) and (C)(1) and (2).

       {¶ 14} 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.
       {¶ 15} In the present case, relator failed to file an affidavit as required by
R.C. 2969.25(A). Relator also does not give any indication in his complaint(s) that he has
filed no civil actions or appeals of a civil action in the previous five years in any state or
federal court. See State ex rel. Jones v. Franklin Cty. Common Pleas Court Adm. Judge,
10th Dist. No. 21AP-662, 2022-Ohio-1296, ¶ 8 (magistrate's decision) (finding that, if the
inmate has no prior civil actions to list, no R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit need be filed; in such
cases, however, the inmate must file a statement with his complaint declaring that there are
no prior civil actions to list; failure to include such a statement is grounds for dismissal
under the same conditions as an incomplete or absent affidavit where one would be
required), citing Kachermeyer v. Tolson, 10th Dist. No. 01AP-1186, 2002-Ohio-2092.
Given the lack of an R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit or any mention in his complaint(s) that he
has filed no other civil actions or appeals in the preceding five years, relator has failed to
comply with R.C. 2969.25(A).
       {¶ 16} Furthermore, relator has failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), which sets
forth specific requirements for an inmate who seeks to proceed without paying the cost
deposit. In this case, in contravention of R.C. 2969.25(C), relator did not file an affidavit
that he is seeking a waiver of the prepayment of the court’s full filing fees and an affidavit
of indigency. Relator also did not file a statement of his prisoner trust account that sets
forth the balance in his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as certified by
No. 22AP-662                                                                               8

the institutional cashier. 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) is an
additional ground for dismissal.
       {¶ 17} Furthermore, 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 either his petition or amended petition, and relator has not sought leave to amend his
complaint to name the State of Ohio on the relation of relator.
       {¶ 18} 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, 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

                              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).