State ex rel. Neil v. French (Slip Opinion), 104 N.E.3d 764

Inmate Miguel Neil filed a complaint in the Tenth District Court of Appeals seeking a writ of procedendo against Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Jenifer French, alleging the trial court failed to rule on his postconviction petition filed Feb. 3, 2016.
Neil submitted an affidavit of indigency requesting waiver of the filing fee but did not include the R.C. 2969.25(C) inmate-account statement showing the account balance for each of the preceding six months; he did submit a statement of assets.
The court of appeals referred the matter to a magistrate, who recommended sua sponte dismissal for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C); the court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the complaint.
On appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio, Neil conceded the trial court had entered a judgment entry on Oct. 31, 2016 (so a procedendo claim was moot) and argued he was not served and thus lost his ability to appeal.
Neil argued for excusing noncompliance as substantial compliance or on constitutional grounds alleging unequal treatment of pro se litigants; Judge French acknowledged Neil had not been properly served and that he could pursue an appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to attach the R.C. 2969.25(C) inmate-account statement permits proceeding in forma pauperis	Neil: omission is a technicality and should be excused as "some semblance of compliance"	French: statutory requirements are mandatory and omission requires dismissal	Court: Dismissal required; R.C. 2969.25(C) is mandatory and allows no substantial-compliance exception
Whether the procedendo claim remains viable when trial court issued a judgment entry	Neil: trial court rendered a decision Oct. 31, 2016 but he was not served, so relief still warranted	French: admits judgment entry existed and that Neil was not served, allowing Neil to pursue appeal	Court: Procedendo claim moot because duty already performed; Neil may pursue an appeal due to lack of service
Whether R.C. 2969.25(C) is unconstitutional or applied inconsistently to pro se litigants	Neil: statute is unconstitutional as applied to deny relief for a technical omission and courts treat pro se litigants inconsistently; asks court to allow substantial compliance	French: defends statute as constitutional and regularly enforced; no conflict warranting relief	Court: Neil failed to rebut constitutionality; precedent upholds statute and enforces uniform compliance; pro se status does not excuse statutory requirements

State ex rel. Poulton v. Cottrill, 147 Ohio St.3d 402 (2016) (procedendo will not compel performance of a duty already performed)
State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, 140 Ohio St.3d 297 (2014) (requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory; noncompliance requires dismissal)
State ex rel. Manns v. Henson, 119 Ohio St.3d 348 (2008) (R.C. 2969.25(C) does not permit substantial compliance)
State ex rel. Evans v. McGrath, 151 Ohio St.3d 345 (2017) (rejecting constitutional challenge to R.C. 2969.25 filing requirements)
Boles v. Knab, 129 Ohio St.3d 222 (2011) (upholding enforcement of inmate-filing requirements)
State ex rel. Gessner v. Vore, 123 Ohio St.3d 96 (2009) (pro se litigants must follow same procedures as counsel-represented litigants)