State ex rel. Evans v. McGrath (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 8290
| Ohio | 2017Background
- William H. Evans Jr., an inmate, filed a negligence action against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction; the trial judge (McGrath) dismissed, the appellate court reversed and remanded, and on remand McGrath denied Evans’s motion for summary judgment.
- Evans then filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in the Tenth District Court of Appeals, arguing the judge lacked jurisdiction due to law-of-the-case, res judicata, and the mandate rule.
- Evans sought in forma pauperis filing in the court of appeals and thus was required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) to attach a six-month inmate-account balance certified by the institutional cashier.
- The Tenth District dismissed Evans’s petition for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) because he did not provide the certified six-month account statement.
- Evans conceded noncompliance and argued (1) the statute is not mandatory/was unconstitutional, (2) he should be permitted to cure the defect, and (3) an internal prison policy prevented his compliance.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the dismissal, rejecting Evans’s challenges and holding the filing requirement is mandatory, not curable after filing, and not excused by the asserted prison policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Evans) | Defendant's Argument (State/Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) required strict compliance with a certified six-month inmate-account statement | Requirement is not strict; statute is unconstitutional if read as mandatory | Statute is mandatory and constitutional | Requirement is mandatory and presumptively constitutional; dismissal for noncompliance affirmed |
| Whether the filing defect could be cured post-filing | Evans should be allowed to amend/cure the defect | Noncompliance cannot be cured after filing | Noncompliance is not curable by amendment after filing; dismissal proper |
| Whether an internal prison policy excused noncompliance | Prison cashier’s policy prevented obtaining/sending the six-month statement | Prisoners can have cashier mail documents; claimant could have forwarded petition to cashier | Alleged prison policy did not excuse noncompliance; Evans could have secured required certification |
| Whether the appellate court erred in dismissing the prohibition petition | Petition should proceed on merits because judge lacked jurisdiction | Dismissal mandated by statutory filing requirements for inmates | Dismissal affirmed for procedural noncompliance; merits not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11 (2003) (R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) filing requirement is mandatory and failure to comply warrants dismissal)
- Boles v. Knab, 129 Ohio St.3d 222 (2011) (reiterating treatment of inmate filing requirements and constitutionality presumption)
- Cleveland v. State, 128 Ohio St.3d 135 (2010) (statutes are presumptively constitutional and not invalidated absent clear demonstration)
- State ex rel. Jackson v. Calabrese, 143 Ohio St.3d 409 (2015) (noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) cannot be cured after filing)
- Robinson v. Miller, 148 Ohio St.3d 429 (2016) (Justice O'Neill’s related dissent referenced)