State ex rel. Swain v. Bartleson

914 N.E.2d 403

Ohio

2009

Check Treatment

THE STATE EX REL. SWAIN, APPELLANT, v. BARTLESON, APPELLEE.

No. 2009-0804

Supreme Court of Ohio

September 15, 2009

123 Ohio St.3d 125, 2009-Ohio-4690

Submitted September 2, 2009

Ricardo Leon, pro se.

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment dismissing the petition of appellant, inmate Sean Swain, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, the inspector of institutional services at Toledo Correctional Institution, to answer his grievances. “The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate‘s action to dismissal.”

State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5; . R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) required Swain, who filed a declaration of indigency in which he claimed an inability to pay the costs and fees associated with his mandamus case, to file a statement setting forth his inmate account “for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier.” He did not do so, and his claims on appeal concerning the inapplicability of R.C. 2969.25(A) are insufficient to justify reversal of a judgment that was properly premised in part on R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). We will not reverse a correct judgment simply because some or all of a lower court‘s reasons are erroneous. .

Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘CONNOR, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.

THE STATE EX REL. JANOSEK ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. CUYAHOGA SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, APPELLEE.

No. 2009-0705

Supreme Court of Ohio

September 16, 2009

123 Ohio St.3d 126, 2009-Ohio-4692

Submitted September 2, 2009

Sean Swain, pro se.

Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Melissa Montgomery, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of prohibition to prevent appellee, Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency, from ordering the payment of spousal support and the withholding of money allegedly not owed by appellants, James Janosek and Welded Ring Products Company. Because no statute or other pertinent law required the agency to conduct a hearing resembling a judicial trial when it issued its notice to withhold income for spousal support, the agency did not exercise the judicial or quasi-judicial authority required for appellants to be entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in prohibition. See

State ex rel. Wright v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 120 Ohio St.3d 92, 2008-Ohio-5553, 896 N.E.2d 706, ¶ 8. The authorities cited by appellants refer only to discretionary authority to hold hearings. See, e.g., R.C. 5101.37. Insofar as appellants claim that the agency is acting contrary to a trial court order, they have an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by way of a motion for contempt in the trial court case. See .

Judgment affirmed.