State ex rel. Evans v. Tieman (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 2411

Background

Relator William H. Evans Jr., an inmate, filed an original mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court seeking to compel prosecutors and judges in Scioto and Franklin Counties to investigate/prosecute alleged criminal conduct he asserted in various county-court filings, and to compel a Scioto County clerk to notify him of dispositions.
Evans had previously filed allegations (some not in affidavit form) in multiple Scioto and Franklin County cases claiming public corruption and criminal acts by public officials.
Respondents (county prosecutors, judges, and a clerk) moved to dismiss, arguing Evans failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25 inmate-filing requirements.
The Supreme Court denied the motions to dismiss because R.C. 2969.25 does not apply to original actions filed in the Ohio Supreme Court, which are governed by the Court’s rules.
On independent review under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04(C), the Court dismissed Evans’s complaint for failure to state a claim: Evans did not identify which allegations were sworn affidavits as required by R.C. 2935.09(D), did not plead specific criminal violations, and did not allege facts showing a prosecutorial-abuse-of-discretion to compel prosecution; his request for a special prosecutor and his clerk-related mandamus claim were denied as unsupported or premature.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of R.C. 2969.25 to this original action	Evans did not address or rely on the statute; he filed in the Supreme Court	Respondents: dismissal because Evans failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25 filing/affidavit requirements	Court: R.C. 2969.25 does not apply to original actions in the Ohio Supreme Court; motions to dismiss on that ground denied
Sufficiency of mandamus pleadings to compel investigation/prosecution	Evans seeks writs forcing prosecutors/judges to investigate or issue arrest warrants based on his allegations	Respondents: no duty to act absent properly sworn affidavits and allegations of criminal conduct; prosecution discretion limits compulsion	Court: Evans failed to allege sworn affidavits or specific criminal statutes violated; complaint fails to show clear legal duty — dismissed
Whether judges/prosecutors must issue arrest warrants or refer matters under R.C. 2935.09/2935.10	Evans contends judges/prosecutors must act on his submissions alleging crimes	Respondents: only sworn affidavits trigger the reviewing-official duties, and officials may decline if not in good faith or not meritorious; prosecutors have discretion	Court: R.C. 2935.09/2935.10 require sworn affidavits and specific allegations; Evans did not plead these, so no mandamus relief
Mandamus to compel clerk notice of final dispositions	Evans seeks order forcing clerk to send and guarantee notice of final dispositions in two cases	Respondents: clerk follows Civ.R. 58(B); no failure alleged	Court: Evans alleged no current failure to serve notice and relief would be premature; claim denied

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Perotti v. Clipper, 151 Ohio St.3d 132, 2017-Ohio-8134 (recognizing R.C. 2969.25 requirements are mandatory for applicable inmate filings)
State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 155 Ohio St.3d 216, 2018-Ohio-4200 (R.C. 2969.25 does not apply to original actions filed in the Ohio Supreme Court)
State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262 (failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 subjects inmate actions to dismissal)
State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69 (elements relator must prove to obtain mandamus: clear right, clear duty, no adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Bunting v. Styer, 147 Ohio St.3d 462, 2016-Ohio-5781 (R.C. 2935.09 must be read with R.C. 2935.10 regarding citizen criminal complaints)
Mootispaw v. Eckstein, 76 Ohio St.3d 383 (prosecutor will not be compelled to prosecute absent abuse of discretion)
State ex rel. Home Care Pharmacy, Inc. v. Creasy, 67 Ohio St.2d 342 (mandamus will not issue to remedy anticipated nonperformance of a duty)