State ex rel. Alford v. Winters
Opinion
We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. Alford failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C) in commencing his mandamus action.1 Alford does not contend that R.C. 2969.25 is inapplicable to mandamus actions. State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 82, 85, 661 N.E.2d 728, 731, quoting R.C. 2731.09 (“Issues of fact raised by the pleadings in mandamus actions ‘must be tried, and further proceedings had, in the same manner as in civil actions.’ ”); cf. Martin v. United States (C.A.7, 1996), 96 F.3d 853, 854 (question of whether mandamus action brought by federal prison inmate constitutes a “civil action” for purposes of federal Prison Litigation Reform Act depends on the circumstances). The court of appeals’ dismissal of Alford’s complaint was further justified because habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the appropriate action for persons claiming entitlement to immediate release from prison. State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 186, 188, 677 N.E.2d 347, 349 (affirming dismissal of mandamus complaints filed by inmates).
Judgment affirmed.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
685 N.E.2d 1242 (State ex rel. Alford v. Winters) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.