The State Ex Rel. McDougald v. Greene.
120 N.E.3d 779
| Ohio | 2018Background
- Relator Jerone McDougald, an inmate at Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, filed an original mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court seeking public records from respondent Larry Greene, the facility’s records custodian.
- McDougald says he submitted a public-records request on August 31, 2017, followed by multiple inquiries, but never received the requested documents; he seeks the records and statutory damages.
- Greene moved to dismiss, arguing McDougald failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25 (the statutory inmate-affidavit requirements for civil actions against government entities/employees).
- McDougald did not respond to the motion; he also moved for leave to amend his complaint to add factual averments.
- The Supreme Court examined whether R.C. 2969.25 applies to original actions filed in the Supreme Court and whether McDougald needed leave to amend his pleading.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2969.25’s inmate filing requirements apply to an original mandamus action filed in the Ohio Supreme Court | McDougald proceeded without the R.C. 2969.25 affidavit (no distinct argument presented in response) | Greene: McDougald’s complaint must be dismissed for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 | R.C. 2969.25 does not apply to original actions filed in the Supreme Court; motion to dismiss denied and alternative writ granted |
| Whether McDougald needed leave of court to amend his complaint within the applicable time period | McDougald sought leave to amend to add facts | Greene implicitly opposed dismissal/amendment (no separate argument recorded) | Leave not required; amendment was timely under Civ.R. 15(A), so motion for leave to amend denied as unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Perotti v. Clipper, 151 Ohio St.3d 132 (2017) (R.C. 2969.25 requirements are mandatory for covered actions)
- State ex rel. McGrath v. McDonnell, 126 Ohio St.3d 511 (2010) (failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 subjects inmate action to dismissal)
- State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11 (2003) (same principle on mandatory compliance)
- State ex rel. Sands v. Bunting, 150 Ohio St.3d 325 (2017) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25)
- Robinson v. LaRose, 147 Ohio St.3d 473 (2016) (same)
- State ex rel. Davenport v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 255 (2016) (failure to supply required affidavits when seeking fee waiver supports dismissal)
- State ex rel. Ridenour v. Brunsman, 117 Ohio St.3d 260 (2008) (same)
- Michelson v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, 99 N.E.3d 475 (2018) (Civ.R. 15(A) amendment-as-of-right timing applied)