Davis v. Black
This text of 2023 Ohio 4079 (Davis v. Black) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as Davis v. Black, 2023-Ohio-4079.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN )
KELLEN DAVIS C.A. No. 23CA012052 Petitioner
v. ORIGINAL ACTION IN JENNIFER BLACK, WARDEN HABEAS CORPUS
Respondent
Dated: November 13, 2023
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Petitioner Kellen Davis has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus asking this
Court to order Respondent, Warden Jennifer Black, to release him from custody. Because Mr.
Davis failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C), the case is
dismissed.
{¶2} R.C. 2969.25 sets forth specific filing requirements for inmates who file a civil
action against a government employee or entity. Warden Black is a government employee and
Mr. Davis, incarcerated in the Lorain Correctional Institution, is an inmate. R.C. 2969.21(C) and
(D). A case must be dismissed if the inmate fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of
R.C. 2969.25 in the commencement of the action. State ex rel. Graham v. Findlay Mun. Court,
106 Ohio St.3d 63, 2005-Ohio-3671, ¶ 6 (“The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and
failure to comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.”). Mr. Davis failed to
comply with these requirements. C.A. No. 23CA012052 Page 2 of 3
{¶3} Mr. Davis moved for a waiver of the prepayment of the cost deposit. An inmate
seeking waiver of filing fees must file an affidavit of indigency. The affidavit must include,
among other things, “[a] statement that sets forth the balance in the inmate account of the inmate
for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier[.]” R.C.
2969.25(C)(1). The Ohio Supreme Court has construed these words strictly: an affidavit that
“does not include a statement setting forth the balance in [an] inmate account for each of the
preceding six months” fails to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). (emphasis sic.) State ex rel.
Roden v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 159 Ohio St.3d 314, 2020-Ohio-408, ¶ 6.
{¶4} Mr. Davis’ affidavit only states that he did not have sufficient funds to pay the
filing fee. The combined form, presenting his affidavit of indigency and statement of his inmate
account, included a statement from the prison cashier. That statement provides a sixth month
average; it does not provide the balance in the inmate account for each of the six months
preceding the filing of his petition before this Court. “‘R.C. 2969.25(C) does not permit
substantial compliance[;]’” it requires strict adherence by the filing inmate. Id. at ¶ 8, citing State
ex rel. Neil v. French, 153 Ohio St.3d 271, 2018-Ohio-2692, ¶ 7. Therefore, Mr. Davis’ affidavit
does not comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C)(1).
{¶5} Because Mr. Davis did not comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C.
2969.25, this case is dismissed. C.A. No. 23CA012052 Page 3 of 3
{¶6} Costs are taxed to Mr. Davis. The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve
upon all parties not in default notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See
Civ.R. 58.
JENNIFER L. HENSAL FOR THE COURT
CARR, J. FLAGG LANZINGER, J. CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
KELLEN DAVIS, Pro se, petitioner.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2023 Ohio 4079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-black-ohioctapp-2023.