State ex rel. Alford v. Winters
This text of 685 N.E.2d 1242 (State ex rel. Alford v. Winters) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
685 N.E.2d 1242, 80 Ohio St. 3d 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-alford-v-winters-ohio-1997.