State ex rel. Young v. Clipper, 142 Ohio St. 3d 318

Aaron Young, an inmate, requested copies/inspection of employee rules of conduct from Warden Kimberly Clipper and alleges no response.
Young sought a notification-of-grievance form after being told to complete step one of the inmate grievance process; he alleges attempts to obtain the form failed.
Young filed a pro se mandamus petition in the Ninth District Court of Appeals against Clipper for failing to respond to his public-records requests.
The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the petition for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) because Young did not pay the filing fee and his affidavit of indigency lacked the required six-month account balances certified by the institutional cashier.
Young moved for relief under Civ.R. 60(B) and sought leave to amend his complaint; the court denied both motions.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding the statutory requirements are mandatory and not cured by belated amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court may sua sponte dismiss for noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(C)	Young argued dismissal was an abuse of discretion	Court argued R.C. 2969.25(C) requirements are mandatory and dismissal is required for noncompliance	Court held dismissal was proper; statute is mandatory (State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr)
Whether denial of Civ.R. 60(B) and leave to amend was an abuse of discretion	Young sought relief and leave to cure the affidavit defects	Court maintained belated compliance cannot cure initial failure to meet R.C. 2969.25(C)	Court held denial was proper; subsequent amendment cannot cure noncompliance (Hazel; Fuqua)

State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, 140 Ohio St.3d 297 (statutory filing requirements for inmate actions are mandatory)
Hazel v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 22 (belated affidavit cannot cure failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25)
Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211 (failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 is not cured by later amendment)