State ex rel. Russell v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 2693

Mark Russell, an inmate at Warren Correctional Institution, filed a mandamus complaint in the Tenth District Court of Appeals seeking (1) an order requiring the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) to have its Use of Force Committee review an alleged chemical spray incident and (2) a waiver of prepayment of filing fees.
The magistrate recommended sua sponte dismissal because Russell failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) governing inmate requests for fee waivers; the DRC moved to dismiss on the same ground.
The court of appeals adopted the magistrate’s recommendation, dismissed the complaint, and assessed costs against Russell. He later moved to waive those assessed costs; the court denied the motion.
On appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, Russell limited his appeal to the denial of the motion to waive costs and argued that the DRC’s garnishment of his inmate account (to collect costs) violated state and federal due process and that garnishments should follow civil-judgment collection procedures.
Russell also moved for appointment of counsel, claiming a constitutional issue merited representation; the Supreme Court denied the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Russell was entitled to appointed counsel in this civil mandamus action	Russell: constitutional question requires an attorney	DRC/State: no general right to counsel in civil cases; no authority for appointment	Denied — no generalized right to counsel in civil litigation; motion denied
Whether the court of appeals erred by denying waiver of costs and whether DRC’s garnishment procedures violated due process	Russell: court costs were garnished from his inmate account without the procedural protections applicable to civil-judgment debtors, violating due process; seeks restoration of funds	DRC/State: (procedural defense below) Russell failed to follow R.C. 2969.25(C) and did not raise garnishment challenge in his mandamus petition	Held — appeal limited to the denial of the fee-waiver motion; Russell waived new claims raised for the first time on appeal (cannot challenge DRC garnishment procedures because he did not raise them in the original petition). Judgment affirmed

Jenkins v. Stern, 33 Ohio St.3d 108 (1987) (no generalized right to counsel in civil litigation)
Scruggs v. Sadler, 102 Ohio St.3d 160 (2004) (relator waives new claims raised on appeal that were not presented in the original petition)