Gaines v. State

2012 Ohio 93

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 9, 2012
• Docket: 97412
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Gaines v. State, 2012-Ohio-93.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97412

EDDIE GAINES RELATOR

vs.

STATE OF OHIO RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 449046 Order No. 450951

RELEASE DATE: January 9, 2012 FOR RELATOR

Eddie Gaines, pro se Inmate #591-362 Marion Correctional Inst. M.C.C. Camp P. O. Box 57 Marion, OH 43302

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT

William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor 9th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:

{¶ 1} Relator, Eddie Gaines, is the defendant in State v. Gaines, Cuyahoga Cty.

Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-535214, 537607, and 537680. Gaines avers in

the body of his complaint that the prosecuting attorney – who is the de facto respondent –

is “removing money” from his prison account. Complaint, ¶3. He requests that this

court issue a writ of mandamus to prevent the prosecuting attorney from removing funds

from his prison account to pay outstanding court costs in the underlying criminal cases

and to return to him funds that have already been removed.

{¶ 2} The prosecuting attorney has filed a motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, we grant respondent’s motion for summary judgment and deny

the request for relief in mandamus.

{¶ 3} Gaines argues that two federal district court cases, Clay v. Fisher, 584

F.Supp. 730 (S.D.Ohio 1984) followed in Hutchinson v. Cox, 784 F.Supp. 1339

(S.D.Ohio 1992), require granting relief in mandamus. In both Henderson v. State, 8th

Dist. No. 97042, 2011-Ohio-5679, and Collins v. State, 8th Dist. No. 97111,

2011-Ohio-4964, the relators requested the same relief based on the same rationale. We

rejected the relator’s arguments in Henderson and Collins after noting that the federal

cases involved civil actions, not criminal convictions, and observing that statutory

provisions and case law authorize “the department of rehabilitation and correction to

apply funds in a prisoner’s account to a court judgment without proceedings in aid of

execution.” Henderson, supra, at ¶ 11.

{¶ 4} Gaines requests the same relief as Collins and Henderson and asserts the

same rationale. In light of our holding in Collins and Henderson, therefore, we hold that

Gaines has failed to state a claim in mandamus upon which relief can be granted.

{¶ 5} Additionally, as was the case in Collins and Henderson, the complaint is

defective. Gaines has not included the addresses of the parties as required by Civ.R.

10(A) and did not caption the case as on relation of the state as required by R.C. 2731.04.

He also did not name the proper respondent in the caption.

{¶ 6} “Relator also did not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), which requires that an

inmate file a certified statement from his prison cashier setting forth the balance in his private account for each of the preceding six months. This also is sufficient reason to

deny the mandamus, deny indigency status, and assess costs against the relator.”

(Citations deleted.) Stadmire v. Donnelly, 8th Dist. 97156, 2011-Ohio-6481, at ¶ 5.

{¶ 7} Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Relator to pay costs. The clerk is directed to serve upon the parties notice of this

judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B).

Writ denied.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and LARRY A. JONES, J.