Court Opinion

ID: 9958143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-08 13:06:39.222779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:57.646968
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Feathers v. Reynolds, 2024-Ohio-1311.]

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

DAVID E. FEATHERS
                                                      C.A. No.        24CA012088
        Petitioner

        v.
                                                      ORIGINAL ACTION IN
STEPHEN REYNOLDS, WARDEN                              HABEAS CORPUS

        Respondent

Dated: April 8, 2024

        PER CURIAM.

        {¶1}    Petitioner, David E. Feathers, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking

an order to direct Respondent, Warden Stephen Reynolds, to release him from custody. Because

Mr. Feathers’ 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 Reynolds is a government employee and

Mr. Feathers, incarcerated in the Grafton 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. Feathers failed to

comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C).
                                                                                    C.A. No. 23CA012088
                                                                                               Page 2 of 4

                         Mr. Feathers did not comply with R.C. 2969.25(A)

        {¶3}    Mr. Feathers failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A). That section requires an

inmate, at the time the inmate commences a civil action against a government entity or employee,

to 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.

        {¶4}    “Compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is mandatory, and a failure to comply warrants

dismissal of the action.” State ex rel. Woods v. Jenkins, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2333, ¶ 4,

quoting State v. Henton, 146 Ohio St.3d 9, 2016-Ohio-1518, ¶ 3. Mr. Feathers did not file an

affidavit of prior civil actions. He did file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. In that motion,

he noted that he had been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in several state and federal

court proceedings, including cases he filed in the Ohio Supreme Court and the United States Sixth

Circuit Court of Appeals in 2023. Even though Mr. Feathers has had civil actions in the last five

years, he failed to file an affidavit detailing his prior civil actions or appeals, as required by R.C.

2969.25(A). Strict compliance with the language of the statute is required by the Supreme Court’s

decisions, and noncompliance with the statutory requirements is fatal, requiring dismissal of the

action. Id.

                         Mr. Feathers did not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C)

        {¶5}    Mr. Feathers also failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C). An inmate seeking the

waiver of filing fees, as Mr. Feathers did in this case, 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
                                                                                 C.A. No. 23CA012088
                                                                                            Page 3 of 4

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.

       {¶6}    Mr. Feathers filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in which he

asked for a waiver of the prepayment of the filing fees. The motion states that it includes a

statement that sets forth the balance of his inmate account for the preceding six months, as certified

by the institutional cashier. Mr. Feathers included a certified statement, but it did not cover the

sixth month period immediately preceding the filing of this case.

       {¶7}    Mr. Feathers filed this case in February 2024. The certified statement covers the

period running from June 28, 2023, through December 29, 2023. This does not reflect the balance

of his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1)

because Mr. Feathers filed his complaint in February 2024. To comply with the requirements of

the statute, the statement must have covered the period through January 2024, but it stopped in

December 2023.

       {¶8}    The Supreme Court has held that the failure to provide a statement that covers the

six-month period immediately prior to the filing of the action does not comply with R.C.

2969.25(C)(1). Russell v. Duffey, 142 Ohio St.3d 320, 2015-Ohio-1358, ¶ 12. This Court has also

dismissed an action because the statement of the inmate account did not cover the six-month period

immediately prior to the filing of the action. State ex rel. Al-Zerjawi v. Ross, 9th Dist. Summit

No. 29640, 2020-Ohio-255, ¶ 4, citing Russell.

       {¶9}    “‘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. Feathers’ motion, and the supporting affidavit and statement

of inmate account, do not comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C)(1).
                                                                                C.A. No. 23CA012088
                                                                                           Page 4 of 4

                                            Conclusion

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

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

                                                     BETTY SUTTON
                                                     FOR THE COURT

CARR, J.
HENSAL, J.
CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

DAVID E. FEATHERS, Pro se, Petitioner.