State ex rel. Castellon v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
2025 Ohio 972
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- Estephen Castellon, an inmate at Richland Correctional Institution, filed a mandamus action asking the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) to issue 407 days of jail-time credit plus transportation time and adjust his release date.
- Castellon attached a notarized affidavit of prior civil actions from the preceding five years, as required by R.C. 2969.25, but used “et al.” instead of listing all parties in some cases.
- ODRC filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Castellon’s affidavit failed to strictly comply with R.C. 2969.25(A)(3), which requires naming each party to previous litigation.
- The magistrate found that using "et al." is insufficient under R.C. 2969.25(A)(3), given strict compliance is required.
- Castellon filed no objections to the magistrate’s decision recommending dismissal.
- The Tenth District Court of Appeals adopted the magistrate’s decision, granted ODRC’s motion, and dismissed Castellon’s mandamus complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of affidavit under R.C. 2969.25(A)(3) | Castellon argued "et al." suffices for listing all parties in prior civil actions. | ODRC argued each party must be specifically named; "et al." is insufficient. | Court held that strict compliance is required; "et al." does not suffice. |
| Effect of failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 | Castellon provided information he believed sufficient for each case. | ODRC asserted any deficiency mandates dismissal. | Court held failure to comply requires dismissal. |
| Ability to cure affidavit deficiencies after filing | Castellon did not attempt cure post-filing. | ODRC cited precedent that curing later isn’t permitted. | Court agreed, late corrections not allowed. |
| Requirement for strict compliance with statutory mandates for inmate civil actions | Castellon claimed substantial compliance. | ODRC insisted strict, not substantial, compliance per precedent. | Court reaffirmed that strict compliance is necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Swanson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 156 Ohio St.3d 408 (strict compliance with affidavit requirements is mandatory)
- State ex rel. Washington v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 87 Ohio St.3d 258 (failure to meet R.C. 2969.25 is grounds for dismissal)
- State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421 (no allowance for substantial compliance in R.C. 2969.25)
- State ex rel. Manns v. Henson, 119 Ohio St.3d 348 (cannot cure R.C. 2969.25 defect by late filing)