State ex rel. Lathan v. Ohio Court of Claims
2017 Ohio 444
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Relator Darek Lathan, an incarcerated pro se litigant, filed an original action in this court seeking a writ of procedendo to compel the Ohio Court of Claims to enter judgment in a related case.
- At filing (June 9, 2016) Lathan requested waiver of prepayment of court fees but did not submit a statutorily required affidavit listing each civil action/appeal he filed in the last five years.
- Lathan also failed to include with his fee-waiver request: (1) a cashier-certified statement of his inmate account balance for each of the six months preceding filing, and (2) a statement of all other cash and things of value he owns.
- The magistrate recommended sua sponte dismissal for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), citing mandatory-compliance precedent.
- The court of appeals adopted the magistrate’s decision and dismissed the action sua sponte; pending motions (including respondent’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion and relator’s motions to strike) were rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relator’s procedendo action should proceed despite incomplete R.C. 2969.25(C) filings | Lathan sought waiver of prepayment and implied indigency; requested relief to compel Court of Claims | Court of Claims (respondent) relied on statutory and precedent defenses that R.C. 2969.25(C) requirements are mandatory | Dismissed sua sponte for noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(C) |
| Whether failure to attach cashier-certified six-month account statement is curable after filing | Lathan implicitly argued waiver request justified proceeding or could be cured | Respondent argued statutory form/contents are mandatory and uncured defects warrant dismissal | Court held defect is not cured post-filing; dismissal appropriate |
| Whether court must give opportunity to pay filing fee before dismissal when waiver sought but affidavit deficient | Lathan did not assert he should be given opportunity to pay at dismissal stage | Respondent relied on precedent allowing dismissal without offering fee payment when waiver expressly requested | Court followed precedent: no obligation to offer payment opportunity; dismissal stands |
| Whether relator should be ordered to pay costs because he did not establish indigency | Lathan did not establish indigency in record | Respondent argued costs may be awarded where plaintiff failed to prove indigency and did not prevail | Magistrate recommended ordering costs; court dismissed action and rendered pending motions moot (recommendation to tax costs noted) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Washington v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 87 Ohio St.3d 258 (mandatory compliance with R.C. 2969.25)
- State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421 (failure to satisfy R.C. 2969.25 grounds for dismissal)
- State ex rel. Alford v. Winters, 80 Ohio St.3d 285 (statutory compliance required for inmate filings)
- State ex rel. Pamer v. Collier, 108 Ohio St.3d 492 (failure to include certified six-month cashier statement warrants dismissal)
- State ex rel. Ridenour v. Brunsman, 117 Ohio St.3d 260 (uncertified account statements do not satisfy R.C. 2969.25(C))
- State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11 (reinforcing mandatory nature of R.C. 2969.25 requirements)
- State ex rel. Foster v. Belmont Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 107 Ohio St.3d 195 (procedural precedent cited on indigency and compliance)
- State ex rel. Frailey v. Wolfe, 92 Ohio St.3d 320 (costs and fee practices where indigency not established)