2019 Ohio 3849
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background:
- Relator Kimani E. Ware, an inmate, filed a petition for writ of mandamus (July 30, 2019) to compel the Stark County Prosecutor’s Office to respond to a public-records request served Feb. 28, 2019.
- Ware sought calendars of prosecutors, personnel files (three employees), employee handbook and public-records poster, performance evaluations, office policies/retention schedule, and Ferrero’s election/oath/organizational chart.
- Prosecutor Ferrero moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing Ware failed to satisfy inmate-filing requirements in R.C. 2969.25.
- The court held R.C. 2969.25 applies because the respondents are government employees/entity and Ware is an inmate; the statute requires a strict, detailed affidavit listing each civil action in the prior five years and the outcome, including whether any were dismissed as frivolous.
- Ware’s attached affidavit listed eight prior civil actions but failed to state the outcome for any and omitted nature of two appeals; his blanket declaration that none were deemed frivolous did not cure these defects.
- Court dismissed the mandamus petition for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of R.C. 2969.25 to this mandamus action | Ware implicitly treats petition as ordinary mandamus seeking records; did not dispute statute applies | Ferrero: statute applies because respondents are government employees/entity and Ware is an inmate | R.C. 2969.25 applies to this action |
| Required contents of inmate affidavit under R.C. 2969.25(A) | Ware contends his affidavit satisfies requirements (including blanket statement that none were frivolous) | Ferrero: affidavit must list each action, describe nature and outcome, and state any frivolous-dismissal or sanction details | Court: statute demands strict, specific information about past actions and outcomes |
| Sufficiency of Ware’s affidavit (listed eight actions) | Ware: listing eight prior actions plus blanket statement that none were deemed frivolous suffices | Ferrero: Ware failed to provide outcomes and omitted descriptions for two matters, so affidavit is deficient | Court: affidavit deficient for failing to state outcomes and describe two appeals |
| Remedy for noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25 | Ware argued deficiencies should be excused or cured | Ferrero sought dismissal | Court: dismissal required for failure to comply with mandatory statute |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28 (1983) (mandamus elements: clear right, clear duty, and lack of adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Swanson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 156 Ohio St.3d 408 (2019) (strict, mandatory compliance with R.C. 2969.25; omission requires dismissal)
- State ex rel. Graham v. Findlay Mun. Court, 106 Ohio St.3d 63 (2005) (R.C. 2969.25 requirements are mandatory and noncompliance subjects inmate action to dismissal)
- State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, 140 Ohio St.3d 297 (2014) (reaffirmation of mandatory nature of R.C. 2969.25)