State ex rel. Perotti v. Clippper (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 8134

Petitioner John W. Perotti, an inmate, filed a habeas corpus petition on June 13, 2016, claiming he had served the maximum sentences and sought immediate release.
The Ninth District Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on July 25, 2016 for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C).
R.C. 2969.25(A) requires an inmate suing a government entity to file an affidavit listing each civil action or appeal filed in the previous five years.
Perotti admitted he had filed multiple federal habeas actions against the Ohio Adult Parole Authority within the prior five years but did not file the required affidavit.
Perotti argued he was not required to file the affidavit because he did not seek a filing-fee waiver under R.C. 2969.25(C).
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the appellate dismissal, holding the affidavit requirement in (A) applies regardless of whether a fee waiver under (C) is sought.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Perotti had to file the R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit when bringing a habeas petition against a government entity	Perotti: Not required because he did not seek a filing-fee waiver under R.C. 2969.25(C)	State/Appellees: (Implied) R.C. 2969.25(A) applies to all inmate civil actions against government entities, independent of (C)	Court: (A) is mandatory and applies regardless of fee-waiver requests; Perotti’s failure to file the affidavit justified dismissal
Whether failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 mandates dismissal of the inmate’s action	Perotti: Noncompliance not excused in his case	State: Noncompliance mandates dismissal	Court: Requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory; failure to comply subjects action to dismissal

State ex rel. McGrath v. McDonnell, 126 Ohio St.3d 511 (2010) (R.C. 2969.25 requirements are mandatory and noncompliance warrants dismissal)
State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11 (2003) (same principle: inmate’s failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 supports dismissal)