State ex rel. Chester v. Doherty

2025 Ohio 81

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 13, 2025
• Docket: 2024-P-0028
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Chester v. Doherty, 2025-Ohio-81.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. CASE NO. 2024-P-0028 ISAAC CHESTER,

Relator, Original Action for Mandamus

- vs -

BECKY L. DOHERTY,

Respondent.

PER CURIAM OPINION

Decided: January 13, 2025 Judgment: Petition dismissed

Isaac Chester, pro se, PID# A791-522, Richland Correctional Institution, 1001 Olivesburg Road, P.O. Box 8107, Mansfield, OH 44901 (Relator).

Connie J. Lewandowski, Portage County Prosecutor; Pamela J. Holder and Theresa M. Scahill, Assistant Prosecutors, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Respondent).

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} This matter is before the court on a petition for writ of mandamus filed by

relator, Isaac Chester (“Mr. Chester”), against respondent, Judge Becky L. Doherty of the

Portage County Court of Common Pleas (“respondent”), and respondent’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6)

motion to dismiss for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A). For the reasons that follow,

respondent’s motion is granted, and Mr. Chester’s petition for a writ of mandamus is

dismissed. {¶2} Mr. Chester is incarcerated in the Richland Correctional Institution. In July

2023, Mr. Chester filed a “motion for transcripts at state’s expense,” seeking six

transcripts from pretrial conferences, his plea hearing, and his sentencing hearing. In

September and October 2023, Mr. Chester filed two additional motions, requesting the

court issue the transcripts and proceed to judgment on his motions for transcripts.

{¶3} In May 2024, Mr. Chester filed a writ of mandamus against respondent in

this court, requesting that we issue an order compelling respondent to provide the

transcripts he requested.

{¶4} Respondent filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted, contending that according to Mr. Chester’s

petition, he received all the transcripts that exist for his case. Because it was not plainly

evident that Mr. Chester had received all the transcripts he requested, we converted

respondent’s motion to a summary judgment motion and requested the parties file

supplemental briefs and/or motions for summary judgment with evidentiary materials.

{¶5} Mr. Chester filed a motion for summary judgment; however, he failed to

submit any evidentiary quality material in support pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C). Respondent

failed to file a supplemental brief and/or a response to Mr. Chester’s motion for summary

judgment. Accordingly, we overruled respondent’s motion and set the matter for a status

conference, at which we set deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions.

{¶6} In December 2024, Mr. Chester filed a “motion for leave to amend affidavit

of prior civil actions/listings,” seeking to add a civil action he had omitted from his list of

prior civil actions in his original petition. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for failure

Case No. 2024-P-0028 to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A), contending a defective affidavit cannot be cured by a

motion for leave to amend.1

{¶7} “A mandamus is a civil proceeding, extraordinary in nature since it can only

be maintained when there is no other adequate remedy to enforce clear legal rights.”

State ex rel. Widmer v. Mohney, 2008-Ohio-1028, ¶ 31 (11th Dist.), citing State ex rel.

Brammer v. Hayes, 164 Ohio St. 373 (1955). “Mandamus is a writ issued to a public

officer to perform an act that the law enjoins as a duty resulting from his or her office.”

Id., citing R.C. 2731.01. For a writ of mandamus to issue, (1) the relator must establish

a clear legal right to the relief prayed for; (2) the respondent must have a clear legal duty

to perform the act; and (3) the relator must have no plain and adequate remedy in the

ordinary course of the law. Id. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that mandamus is

the appropriate remedy to force compliance with the public records statute. State ex rel.

McGowan v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 78 Ohio St.3d 518, 520 (1997). Thus,

persons seeking public records need not establish the lack of an adequate remedy at law

in order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus. Id.

{¶8} We review de novo the dismissal of an inmate’s extraordinary writ action

for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25. State ex rel. Pointer v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.,

2022-Ohio-3261, ¶ 6.

1. In December 2024, respondent also filed five of the six transcripts (June 16, 2021; July 9, 2021; August 5, 2021; August 10, 2021; and August 1, 2022) requested by Mr. Chester. Respondent has not provided a transcript or a statement indicating that one does not exist for the pretrial held on July 27, 2021. On December 30, 2024, Mr. Chester filed a “notice of incomplete transcripts provided by respondent,” stating the July 27, 2021 transcript was not provided and the August 10, 2021 transcript is incomplete. To the extent that complete transcripts have been provided as responses to Mr. Chester’s request, those portions of Mr. Chester’s mandamus claim are rendered moot. See State ex rel. Berry, 2024-Ohio-5774, ¶ 12. 3

Case No. 2024-P-0028 {¶9} Pursuant to R.C. 2969.25(A), “[a]t the time that an inmate commences a

civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee, the inmate shall file with

the court an affidavit that contains a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil

action that the inmate has filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court.

The affidavit shall include all of the following for each of those civil actions or appeals:

{¶10} “(1) A brief description of the nature of the civil action or appeal;

{¶11} “(2) The case name, case number, and the court in which the civil action or

appeal was brought;

{¶12} “(3) The name of each party to the civil action or appeal . . . .”

{¶13} R.C. 2969.25 requires strict compliance. State ex rel. Swanson v. Ohio

Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2019-Ohio-1271, ¶ 6. Compliance with the provisions of R.C.

2969.25 is mandatory and the failure to satisfy the statutory requirements is grounds for

dismissal of the action. State ex rel. Washington v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 87 Ohio

St.3d 258 (1999); State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 422 (1998).

Nothing in R.C. 2969.25 permits substantial compliance. State ex rel. Manns v. Henson,

2008-Ohio-4478, ¶ 4, citing Martin v. Ghee, 2002-Ohio-1621. Furthermore, the failure to

comply with R.C. 2969.25 cannot be cured at a later date by belatedly attempting to file

a compliant affidavit. State ex rel. Young v. Clipper, 2015-Ohio-1351, ¶ 9. Morris v. Keith,

2024-Ohio-1143, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.). See also State ex rel. Young v. Clipper, 2015-Ohio-

1351, ¶ 9 (R.C. 2969.25 defect cannot be cured by subsequent amendment); State ex

rel. Swopes v. McCormick, 2022-Ohio-4408, ¶ 13 (Civ.R. 15 does not provide a safe

harbor for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25); State ex rel. Chester v. Booth, 2024-Ohio-

1858, ¶ 23 (11th Dist.) (“Complaint” must be dismissed as statutorily insufficient).

Case No. 2024-P-0028 {¶14} Thus, Mr. Chester cannot cure his defective petition by filing a motion for

leave to amend his affidavit pursuant to Civ.R. 15.

{¶15} Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted, and Mr. Chester’s

petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed.

ROBERT J. PATTON, P.J., MARY JANE TRAPP, J., EUGENE A. LUCCI, J., concur.

Case No. 2024-P-0028