Howard v. Mgt. & Training Corp., 2022 Ohio 4071

Plaintiff Jeffery L. Howard, an inmate at Northern Central Correctional Institution (NCCI), sued Management & Training Corp. (MTC), the private, for‑profit operator of NCCI, and several employees alleging retaliation, falsified conduct reports, fraud, and equal protection violations.
Howard filed the complaint April 21, 2020 and attached an affidavit disclosing six prior lawsuits; the affidavit cited R.C. 2969.25(A), which requires an inmate to disclose prior litigation when suing a "government entity or employee."
MTC moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing (1) the affidavit was insufficiently descriptive under R.C. 2969.25(A) and (2) a private prison and its employees fall within the statute's scope; it alternatively sought transfer of venue.
The trial court dismissed Howard’s complaint on May 3, 2021 for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A), finding the affidavit deficient and treating MTC as a government entity.
On appeal, MTC argued Howard’s notice of appeal was untimely; Howard countered the clerk never properly served the journalized dismissal and thus the appeal period never began.
The Tenth District held it had jurisdiction because the clerk’s docket reflected the clerk did not complete service (envelope returned), and it reversed the dismissal on the separate statutory question: R.C. 2969.25(A) does not apply to private, for‑profit prison operators like MTC.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal was timely / whether the appellate court has jurisdiction under Civ.R. 58(B) and App.R. 4	Howard: clerk did not properly serve the judgment; he received the entry later and timely attempted to file; appeal should be treated as timely	MTC: notice of appeal filed 32 days after the May 3 entry and therefore untimely	Held: clerk's docket showed service was returned and not completed; App.R. 4(A)(3) tolls the appeal period until actual clerk service, so appeal was timely and jurisdiction exists
Whether R.C. 2969.25(A) applies to suits by inmates against private, for‑profit prisons and their employees	Howard: statute applies only to "government entity or employee" (state or political subdivision); private prison is not a government entity, so the affidavit requirement does not apply	MTC: statutory definitions and some precedent can be read to encompass privately operated institutions; affidavit requirement should apply	Held: statute is unambiguous; the definition of a civil action "against a government entity or employee" refers to actions against the state or political subdivisions; a private, for‑profit corporation like MTC is not a government entity, so R.C. 2969.25(A) does not apply; trial court's dismissal reversed

State ex rel. McGrath v. McDonnell, 126 Ohio St.3d 511 (Ohio 2010) (holding R.C. 2969.25 applied to an inmate's mandamus complaint and required the affidavit)
State ex rel. Howard v. Turner, 156 Ohio St.3d 285 (Ohio 2019) (applied affidavit statute in mandamus/grievance context; did not address privately owned prisons)
Clermont Cty. Transp. Improvement Dist. v. Gator Milford, L.L.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 542 (Ohio 2015) (Clerk's service under Civ.R. 58(B) is determinative for appeal timing; appellate courts cannot excuse service by finding "actual knowledge")
Rogers v. United Presidential Life Ins. Co., 36 Ohio App.3d 126 (10th Dist. 1987) (presumption of proper clerk service when Civil Rules are followed)
Moore v. Starks, 1 Ohio St. 369 (Ohio 1853) (record entries can rebut presumption of service)
State ex rel. Gordon v. Rhodes, 158 Ohio St. 129 (Ohio 1952) (a decision does not settle an issue not raised or passed upon in the case)
Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211 (Ohio 2003) (treats inmate mandamus matters as civil actions for purposes of R.C. 2969 statutes)