State Ex Rel. Bristow v. Huffman

Ohio Court of Appeals

State Ex Rel. Bristow v. Huffman

741 N.E.2d 630, 138 Ohio App. 3d 500

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 22, 2000

DocketCase No. 00 C.A. 150.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 741 N.E.2d 630 (State Ex Rel. Bristow v. Huffman) 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.

Bluebook

State Ex Rel. Bristow v. Huffman, 741 N.E.2d 630, 138 Ohio App. 3d 500 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case arises as an original action in this court on a petition for writ of Tna.nda.muR whereby relator Lonny Lee Bristow alleges that respondents violated Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s (“DRNC”) Policy 304.01 in the manner in which respondents transferred him from one penal institution to the institution at which he is presently incarcerated.

R.C. 2969.25 requires an inmate suing the state or its employees to file an affidavit disclosing all prior civil actions or appeals he initiated during the last five years. This code section states that “the inmate shall file with the court an affidavit that contains a description of each civil action * * * filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court.”

In a prior mandamus action before this court by the relator, we noted that relator had filed at least thirty-nine federal lawsuits against various government entities and officials. See State ex rel. Bristow v. Ritz (Aug. 14, 2000), Mahoning App. No. 00 C.A. 114, unreported, 2000 WL 1262454. In the instant case, relator has listed only eleven cases or appeals that he has filed against a government entity or employee. In their motion to dismiss, respondents have identified at least twelve cases filed by the relator that relator has failed to include among those cases listed in this case. Thus, relator has violated the provisions of R.C. 2969.25.

The provisions of R.C. 2969.25(A) are mandatory and failure to comply are grounds for dismissal. See State ex rel. Alford v. Winters (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 285, 685 N.E.2d 1242. Relator has materially misstated the number of civil actions in the affidavit he has filed pursuant to R.C. 2969.25. For the reasons cited above, relator’s request for writ of mandamus is denied.

*502 Respondents’ motion to dismiss is granted.

Costs taxed against relator.

Final order. Clerk to serve a copy of this order to the parties as provided by the Civil Rules.

Judgment accordingly.

Cox, Vukovich and Gene Donofrio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This case arises as an original action in this court on a petition for writ of Tna.nda.muR whereby relator Lonny Lee Bristow alleges that respondents violated Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s (“DRNC”) Policy 304.01 in the manner in which respondents transferred him from one penal institution to the institution at which he is presently incarcerated.

R.C. 2969.25 requires an inmate suing the state or its employees to file an affidavit disclosing all prior civil actions or appeals he initiated during the last five years. This code section states that “the inmate shall file with the court an affidavit that contains a description of each civil action * * * filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court.”

In a prior mandamus action before this court by the relator, we noted that relator had filed at least thirty-nine federal lawsuits against various government entities and officials. See State ex rel. Bristow v. Ritz (Aug. 14, 2000), Mahoning App. No. 00 C.A. 114, unreported, 2000 WL 1262454. In the instant case, relator has listed only eleven cases or appeals that he has filed against a government entity or employee. In their motion to dismiss, respondents have identified at least twelve cases filed by the relator that relator has failed to include among those cases listed in this case. Thus, relator has violated the provisions of R.C. 2969.25.

The provisions of R.C. 2969.25(A) are mandatory and failure to comply are grounds for dismissal. See State ex rel. Alford v. Winters (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 285, 685 N.E.2d 1242. Relator has materially misstated the number of civil actions in the affidavit he has filed pursuant to R.C. 2969.25. For the reasons cited above, relator’s request for writ of mandamus is denied.

*502 Respondents’ motion to dismiss is granted.

Costs taxed against relator.

Final order. Clerk to serve a copy of this order to the parties as provided by the Civil Rules.

Judgment accordingly.

Cox, Vukovich and Gene Donofrio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

741 N.E.2d 630, 138 Ohio App. 3d 500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-bristow-v-huffman-ohioctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack