Court Opinion

ID: 9955501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 17:12:19.695489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:03.920060
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State ex rel. Harris v. Bobby, 2024-Ohio-1171.]

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                              SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                  MAHONING COUNTY

                              STATE EX REL. BYRON HARRIS,

                                                  Relator,

                                                       v.

                                        DAVID BOBBY et al.,

                                              Respondents.

                        OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                         Case No. 23 MA 0060

                                             Writ of Mandamus

                                         BEFORE:
                    Carol Ann Robb, Cheryl L. Waite, Mark A. Hanni, Judges

                                                JUDGMENT:
                                                 Dismissed.

 Byron Harris, pro se and

 Atty. Timothy J. Bojanowsk, Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo, P.L.C. for Respondents.

                                             Dated: March 27, 2024
                                                                                           –2–

 PER CURIAM.

       {¶1}   Relator Byron Harris has filed this original action for a writ of mandamus to
compel prison officials at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (NEOCC) to produce
public records. Respondents are Douglas Fender, David Bobby, Yolanda Payne, and
CoreCivic, Inc. Fender is the current warden, Bobby is the former warden, Payne is the
grievance coordinator, and CoreCivic owns and operates the NEOCC. Harris also seeks
statutory damages under Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43. The Court dismisses
the petition because Harris has failed to file a proper affidavit of his prior civil actions and
appeals as required by R.C. 2969.25(A).
       {¶2}   R.C. 2969.25(A) requires an inmate who commences a civil action or appeal
in the court of appeals against a governmental entity or employee to file an affidavit
containing “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 must include:
(1) a brief description of the nature of the civil case 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, and (4) the outcome of each civil action or appeal,
as stipulated by R.C. 2969.25(A)(1) through (4).
       {¶3}   Harris’s complaint includes a purported R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit identifying
14 cases, but not all contain the required information. Of those 14 cases, 8 are missing
necessary details: 4 lack a case number, 5 do not identify the court in which the civil action
or appeal was brought, 3 lack a brief description of the nature of the civil case or appeal,
4 do not identify the name of each party to the civil action or appeal, and 2 omit the
outcome of the civil action or appeal.
       {¶4}   “Compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is mandatory, and failure to comply will
warrant dismissal.” State v. Henton, 146 Ohio St.3d 9, 2016-Ohio-1518, 50 N.E.3d 553,
¶ 3. Moreover, the statute requires strict compliance. Id. at ¶ 4; State ex rel. Manns v.
Henson, 119 Ohio St.3d 348, 2008-Ohio-4478, 894 N.E.2d 47, ¶ 4. Where the affidavit
of prior actions does not provide all of the information required by R.C. 2969.25, the
statute requires dismissal. State ex rel. Ware v. Walsh, 159 Ohio St.3d 120, 2020-Ohio-
769, State ex rel. Swanson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Correction, 156 Ohio St.3d 408,
2019-Ohio-1271, 128 N.E.3d 193.

Case No. 23 MA 0060
                                                                                         –3–

       {¶5}   As indicated, R.C. 2969.25(A) sets forth the content an inmate is required
to include in the affidavit and Harris’s affidavit here fails to include all the required
information, necessitating dismissal. Additionally, Harris’s affidavit is invalid as to form.
To constitute a valid affidavit, the statement must be signed by the affiant and notarized.
Rababy v. Metter, 2015-Ohio-1449, 30 N.E.3d 1018, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.). The immutable
constraints of time and space preclude any authenticity being attributed to the notarization
contained on Harris’s affidavit.
       {¶6}   First, the affidavit was notarized on October 18, 2022, a date that precedes
the initiation of Harris’s complaint on March 13, 2023. It is manifestly impossible for Harris
to have sworn to the contents of an affidavit pertaining to a legal action not yet
commenced. Second, the notarization indicates that it was executed in Warren County,
whereas Harris is incarcerated in the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center located in
Mahoning County.
       {¶7}   Accordingly, the Court hereby dismisses Harris’s petition for a writ of
mandamus. Any and all unresolved motions and filings not specifically addressed herein
are hereby dismissed as moot. Costs assessed to Relator Byron Harris. Final order.
The clerk of courts is directed to serve upon all parties not in default notice of this
judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58.

 JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB

 JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE

 JUDGE MARK A. HANNI

Case No. 23 MA 0060