State ex rel. Bey v. Bur. of Sentence Computation (Slip Opinion), 2022 Ohio 236

Vincent El Alan Parker Bey, an inmate, sent public-records requests in 2018–2019 to the Bureau of Sentence Computation (BSC) and the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (APA) for his journal entry of conviction and parole-board materials.
Bey filed two mandamus actions in the Tenth District when he alleged he received no timely responses; the BSC later produced documents after Bey filed his complaint.
The APA moved to dismiss one action for Bey’s alleged failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A), which requires an inmate to file an affidavit listing each civil action or appeal from the prior five years with specific details.
The court of appeals consolidated the two cases, and a magistrate recommended dismissal, finding Bey’s affidavits defective for omitting required details (opposing parties and outcomes, and a brief description of one listed action).
Bey objected (including arguing waiver by respondents and substantial compliance). The Tenth District adopted the magistrate’s decision and dismissed both complaints for noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(A).
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed: the affidavit requirement is mandatory, noncompliance deprives the court of jurisdiction, it is not an affirmative defense that can be waived, and strict (not substantial) compliance is required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Final, appealable order / jurisdiction	Court of appeals failed to address each objection (including waiver), so judgment is not final/appealable	Court disposed of all issues by ruling dismissal for jurisdictional defect; order is final	Judgment was final and appealable; court properly resolved the action by dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
Sufficiency of affidavits under R.C. 2969.25(A)	Affidavits substantially complied; defects were technical	Affidavits omitted required elements (opposing parties, outcomes, brief descriptions) and are defective	Affidavits did not meet statutory requirements; dismissal required
Waiver of the affidavit requirement	BSC waived challenge by not asserting it in its answer	Noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is not an affirmative defense and may be raised even if not pleaded	Not waived; the affidavit requirement is jurisdictional and may be raised outside answer
Standard of compliance	Plaintiff urged against a "hyper-technical" reading, favoring substantial compliance	Statute and precedent require strict compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A)	Strict compliance required; substantial-compliance argument rejected

Alford v. Collins-McGregor Operating Co., 95 N.E.3d 382 (Ohio 2018) (standard of review: de novo for Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
State v. Henton, 50 N.E.3d 553 (Ohio 2016) (R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit requirement is mandatory)
Taylor v. Harris, 152 N.E.3d 262 (Ohio 2020) (defective affidavit omitting required details warrants dismissal)
State ex rel. Swanson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 128 N.E.3d 193 (Ohio 2019) (R.C. 2969.25(A) requires strict compliance)
State ex rel. Steele v. Foley, 173 N.E.3d 1209 (Ohio 2021) (reaffirming strict compliance requirement)
State ex rel. Watkins v. Andrews, 29 N.E.3d 967 (Ohio 2015) (courts may dismiss prisoner complaints sua sponte for R.C. 2969.25(A) noncompliance)
Gallagher v. Cleveland Browns Football Co., 659 N.E.2d 1232 (Ohio 1996) (defines affirmative defense concept)
State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Cleveland, 661 N.E.2d 187 (Ohio 1996) (explains confession-and-avoidance framing of affirmative defenses)
Jim's Steak House v. Cleveland, 688 N.E.2d 506 (Ohio 1997) (discusses waiver and requirement to plead affirmative defenses)