State ex rel. Estephen Castellon v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
No. 23AP-565
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
March 20, 2025
[Cite as State ex rel. Castellon v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2025-Ohio-972.]
MENTEL, J.
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
Rendered on March 20, 2025
On brief: Estephen Castellon, pro se.
On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and George Horvath, for respondent.
IN MANDAMUS
ON RESPONDENT‘S MOTION TO DISMISS
MENTEL, J.
{¶ 1} Relator, Estephen Castellon, filed this original action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC“), to apply the jail-time credit calculation pursuant to a judgment filed in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. ODRC filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the affidavit Mr. Castellon filed with his complaint failed to comply with the requirements of
{¶ 2} Pursuant to
{¶ 3} Mr. Castellon filed no objection to the magistrate‘s decision. “If no timely objections are filed, the court may adopt a magistrate‘s decision, unless it determines that there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate‘s decision.”
Motion granted; complaint dismissed.
BEATTY BLUNT and EDELSTEIN, JJ., concur.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
State ex rel. Estephen Castellon, :
Relator, :
v. : No. 23AP-565
[Ohio Department of Rehabilitation : (REGULAR CALENDAR)
and Correction], :
Respondent. :
MAGISTRATE‘S DECISION
Rendered on January 18, 2024
Estephen Castellon, pro se.
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and George Horvath, for respondent.
IN MANDAMUS
ON RESPONDENT‘S MOTION TO DISMISS
{¶ 4} Relator, Estephen Castellon, has commenced this original action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC“), to issue 407 days of jail-time credit plus transportation time and change his out date instanter. ODRC has filed a motion to dismiss based upon relator‘s noncompliance with
{¶ 5} 1. Relator is an inmate incarcerated at Richland Correctional Institution.
{¶ 6} 2. On September 22, 2023, relator filed the instant mandamus action asking this court to order respondent to issue 407 days of jail-time credit plus transportation time and change his out date instanter.
{¶ 7} 3. Relator attached to his petition for writ of mandamus a notarized affidavit of prior civil actions for the preceding five years, in which he listed three cases and the following information regarding each case:
(1) Writ of procedendo compelling Judge Gallagher to rule on Motion to Correct Jail-time Credit pending on her docket for 8 months.
(2) State ex rel. Castellon vs. Gallagher . . . Case No. 112967, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County.
(3) Castellon (Relator) Judge Gallagher (Respondent).
(4) Dismissed as Moot. (Judge Gallagher ruled on Motion during the litigation of procedendo).Unpublished
(1) Federal habeas corpus ((pending))
(2) CASTELLON vs. JAY FORSHEY, WARDEN, Case No. 1:20-CV-00940-JRK, United States District Court Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division.
(3) Castellon (Petitioner) Warden Jay Forshey (Respondent).
(4) Petition pending . . .Castellon v. Hinkle, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137539, 2023 WL 5011304 (S.D. Ohio August 7, 2023)
(1) Civil action against Noble Correctional Institution staff et al., for First Amendment violations regarding legal mail . . .
(2) Castellon vs. Hinkle . . . Case No. 2:20-cv-6420, United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.On appeal Sixth Circuit Case No. 22-4011
(3) Castellon (Plaintiff). Hinkle, Chambers Smith et al., (Defendants).
(4) Appeal pending in 6th Cir. The Dist. Court held an appeal to be “objectively frivolous.”
{¶ 8} 4. On October 23, 2023, respondent filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
{¶ 9} 5. On November 14, 2023, relator filed a reply to respondent‘s motion to dismiss.
Conclusions of Law:
{¶ 10} The magistrate recommends that this court grant ODRC‘s motion to dismiss this action because relator has failed to comply with the requirements of
(A) At the time that an inmate commences a civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee, the inmate shall file with the court an affidavit that contains a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action that the inmate has filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court. The affidavit shall include all of the following for each of those civil actions or appeals:
(1) A brief description of the nature of the civil action or appeal;
(2) The case name, case number, and the court in which the civil action or appeal was brought;
(3) The name of each party to the civil action or appeal;
(4) The outcome of the civil action or appeal, including whether the court dismissed the civil action or appeal as frivolous or malicious under state or federal law or rule of
court, whether the court made an award against the inmate or the inmate‘s counsel of record for frivolous conduct under section 2323.51 of the Revised Code, another statute, or a rule of court, and, if the court so dismissed the action or appeal or made an award of that nature, the date of the final order affirming the dismissal or award.
{¶ 11}
{¶ 12}
{¶ 13} A court may dismiss a complaint pursuant to
{¶ 14} The magistrate may take judicial notice of the pleadings and orders in related cases when these are not subject to reasonable dispute, at least insofar as they affect the present original action. State ex rel. Nyamusevya v. Hawkins, 10th Dist. No. 19AP-199, 2020-Ohio-2690, ¶ 33, citing
{¶ 15} In the present case, ODRC asserts that relator‘s affidavit of prior civil actions fails to comply with
{¶ 16} ODRC next argues that relator indicates in his affidavit only that the Hinkle case was a civil action, which it claims is insufficient because it was a 42 USC §1983 action alleging interference with access to courts and unconstitutional institutional mail policies, and it also involved a request for injunctive relief. The magistrate disagrees. Relator averred not only that Hinkle was a civil action, but he also indicated that he filed the action against Noble Correctional Institution staff (Hinkle); the case concerned First Amendment violations regarding legal mail; the case number was 2:20-cv-6420; it was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division; he appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit; the appellate case number was 22-4011; and the appellate case was still pending. Furthermore, relator averred that the District Court ruled that an appeal would be “objectively frivolous,” which relator quotes from the final decision rendered in Castellon v. Hinkle, S.D.Ohio No. 2:20-cv-6420, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137539 (Aug. 7, 2023).
{¶ 17} ODRC next argues that relator‘s affidavit did not comply with
{¶ 18} ODRC‘s final argument is that, in the Hinkle case, relator failed to fully identify the names of all defendants, insomuch as relator indicates “et al.” for the defendants when the complaint also listed John/Jane Doe as defendants. The magistrate agrees. While relator accurately indicated that the lead defendant in the case was Hinkle, he failed to indicate that he also named three John/Jane Does as defendants. Although ODRC has failed to provide any authority for the proposition that an
{¶ 19} In the present case, relator‘s failure to list the John/Jane Doe defendants in his affidavit is more than just a mere technical failure. It is apparent from the proceedings in federal court that relator believed there were other governmental employees at ODRC besides the named defendant who were responsible for violating his constitutional rights by interfering with his access to the courts, and he sought, albeit unsuccessfully, to specifically name these three defendants in amended complaints. Furthermore, the federal district court and federal appellate circuit court also specifically addressed the claims raised against the John/Jane Doe defendants in relator‘s complaint. In Castellon v. Hinkle, S.D.Ohio No. 2:20-cv-6420, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102920 (May 24, 2021) (magistrate
{¶ 20} Accordingly, it is the magistrate‘s decision that, based upon relator‘s failure to comply with the mandatory filing requirements of
/S/ MAGISTRATE
THOMAS W. SCHOLL III
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES