Cotton v. Sheldon, 2014 Ohio 756

Cotton, an inmate, filed a writ of mandamus in Marion County alleging the Warden lacked a valid sentencing entry and sought immediate release.
The trial court granted the warden’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling the mandamus claim was barred by res judicata and failed to comply with ORC 2969.21 et seq.
Cotton previously pursued a writ and a procedendo ad judicium directed by this court, with costs assessed against Cotton.
Cotton later filed a motion to rescind unauthorized actions by the clerk of courts, arguing indigence entitled him to avoid court costs.
The trial court denied the motion to rescind, holding that civil actions by an inmate still require payment of court costs under applicable statutes and administrative rules.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding there was no reversible error in the trial court’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the judge was biased in ruling on Cotton’s motion	Cotton alleges bias in the judge’s ruling.	Sheldon argues no bias is shown; record does not demonstrate prejudice.	No reversible error; no demonstrated bias found.
Whether the judge cited his own personal opinions in the decision	Cotton claims the judge inserted personal opinions.	Judgment entry did not reveal impermissible personal views.	No merit to the claim; no improper personal opinion evident.
Whether the judge failed to cite case law in the judgment	Cotton argues absence of cited authorities supports error.	There is no rule requiring case-law citations in a judgment entry.	Not reversible; lack of case-law citation not grounds for reversal.
Whether the court properly applied law regarding inmate court costs and exemptions	Cotton contends exemptions should erase costs due to indigence.	RC 2969.22 and 5120.133 and Ohio Adm. Code 5120-5-03 control, permitting cost collection despite indigence.	Clerk entitled to withdraw court costs from inmate’s account under statute and rule.
Whether Cotton’s motion to rescind was properly deemed a nullity	Cotton argues the motion should rescind court actions.	Motion to rescind is a nullity after final judgment; not proper to reopen case.	Motion to rescind correctly denied; related case concluded by prior judgment.

State v. ex rel. Simms v. Sutula, 81 Ohio St.3d 110 (1998) (nullity of a post-judgment motion to rescind when case already resolved)
Boylen v. Ohio Dept. Of Rehab. & Corr., 182 Ohio App.3d 265 (2009) (procedural requirements for appealing cost collection after garnishment)
State ex rel. Turner v. Eberlin, 117 Ohio St.3d 381 (2008) (notice and safeguards for inmate deprivation of property; supports cost collection)