State ex rel. Watkins v. Andrews, 142 Ohio St. 3d 308

Charles C. Watkins, an inmate, filed an original mandamus action in the Tenth District Court of Appeals seeking review of parole decisions by Sara Andrews and Cynthia Mausser.
R.C. 2969.25(A)(1) requires inmates suing government entities/employees to file an affidavit describing each civil action or appeal filed in the previous five years.
Watkins filed an affidavit stating he had not filed any civil actions in the preceding 12 months, not the five years required.
The court magistrate found the affidavit failed to meet R.C. 2969.25(A)’s five-year disclosure requirement and recommended dismissal.
The Tenth District overruled Watkins’s objections, adopted the magistrate’s findings, and dismissed the petition sua sponte.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding the affidavit was noncompliant and that sua sponte dismissal without prior notice was permissible for this procedural defect.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Watkins complied with R.C. 2969.25(A)’s affidavit requirement	Watkins contended his affidavit provided case name, number, court, parties, outcome and therefore satisfied the statute	Court below and state argued the affidavit covered only the prior 12 months and failed to describe actions from the preceding five years as required	Held: Noncompliant — affidavit only covered 12 months; R.C. 2969.25(A) requires five years, and compliance is mandatory
Whether the court of appeals abused its discretion by dismissing the petition sua sponte without notice	Watkins argued the court could not dismiss sua sponte without prior notice	State argued dismissal for failure to meet R.C. 2969.25 is not on the merits and prior notice is unnecessary because the defect cannot be cured	Held: No abuse — sua sponte dismissal without notice was proper because the statutory defect cannot be cured and dismissal is not on the merits

State ex rel. McGrath v. McDonnell, 935 N.E.2d 830 (Ohio 2010) (R.C. 2969.25 compliance is mandatory)
State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 788 N.E.2d 634 (Ohio 2003) (failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 subjects inmate action to dismissal)
State ex rel. Hawk v. Athens Cty., 833 N.E.2d 296 (Ohio 2005) (reiterating mandatory nature of R.C. 2969.25)
State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, 17 N.E.3d 581 (Ohio 2014) (dismissal for R.C. 2969.25 noncompliance is not on the merits; prior notice unnecessary)
Fuqua v. Williams, 797 N.E.2d 982 (Ohio 2003) (a belated attempt to amend or supply a correct affidavit does not cure initial noncompliance)