State ex rel. Jones v. Franklin Cty. Common Pleas Court Adm. JudgeState ex rel. Jones v. Franklin Cty. Common Pleas Court Adm. Judge
DECISION
Rendered on April 19, 2022
Antonio Jones, pro se.
IN PROCEDENDO ON OBJECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE‘S DECISION
NELSON, J.
{1} Relator Antonio Jones, an inmate at Chillicothe Correctional Institution, has filed an original action requesting a writ of procedendo ordering respondent, Judge Stephen McIntosh of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, to rule on a pending motion in Franklin C.P. No. 20CV-1621.
{2} Pursuant to
{3} Mr. Jones objects to the magistrate‘s decision, asserting that he “did not need to file a
{4}
{5} Under Ohio law, “[t]he requirements of
{6} Mr. Jones‘s underlying action in the court of common pleas involves an “affidavit by accusation,” seeking the arrest of a private citizen pursuant to
{7} Notwithstanding the magistrate‘s focus on the underlying “action to which [Mr. Jones] wishes this court to direct a writ,” we agree with the magistrate‘s ultimate determination that Mr. Jones has commenced at least one civil action or appeal in the five years preceding the action we address here and, therefore, that Mr. Jones‘s failure to provide an affidavit as required by
{8} Upon independent review of the record, we adopt the magistrate‘s decision as modified, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law. In accordance with that modified decision, and having overruled relator Jones‘s objection, we dismiss this action sua sponte.
Relator‘s objection overruled; action dismissed.
SADLER and JAMISON, JJ., concur.
NELSON, J., retired, of the Tenth Appellate District, assigned to active duty under the authority of the Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 6(C).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
State ex rel. Antonio Jones, Relator, v. Franklin County Common Pleas Court Administrative Judge, Respondent.
No. 21AP-662
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
MAGISTRATE‘S DECISION
Rendered on December 13, 2021
Antonio Jones, pro se.
IN PROCEDENDO ON SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
{9} Relator, Antonio Jones, an inmate in the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, commenced this original action seeking a writ of procedendo ordering respondent, Judge Stephen McIntosh of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, to rule on a pending motion in case No. 20CV-1621. The magistrate sua sponte dismisses relator‘s complaint for failure to comply with the inmate-litigant filing requirements of
Findings of Fact:
{10} 1. Relator filed his complaint in procedendo in this court on December 9, 2021. The complaint alleges that respondent has unreasonably delayed ruling on a motion filed by relator in case No. 20CV-1621.
{12} 3. Relator‘s complaint does not include an affidavit to comply with the inmate filing requirements of
Discussion and Conclusions of Law:
{13} The magistrate sua sponte dismisses this action for failure to comply with
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.
{14} Thus,
{15} If the inmate has no prior civil actions to list, no
{16} As set forth in the facts above, it is beyond dispute in the present case that relator commenced at least one civil action in the prior five years (the action to which he wishes this court to direct a writ) and failed to provide an
/S/ MAGISTRATE
MARTIN L. DAVIS
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES