State ex rel. Lagway v. Breaux

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Lagway v. Breaux, 2026-Ohio-2804.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE EX REL. WILLIE LAGWAY C.A. No. 31913

Relator

v.

JUDGE ALLISON BREAUX, et al. ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS Respondents

Dated: July 22, 2026

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} Willie Lagway has petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus. Because Mr.

Lagway failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25, this Court must

dismiss this case.

{¶2} R.C. 2969.25 sets forth specific filing requirements for inmates who file civil

actions against government employees or entities. The respondents are government employees,

and Mr. Lagway, incarcerated in the Southeastern Correctional Institution, is an inmate. See R.C.

2969.21(C) and (D). A case must be dismissed if the inmate fails to comply with the mandatory

requirements of R.C. 2969.25 in the commencement of the action. State ex rel. Graham v. Findlay

Mun. Court, 2005-Ohio-3671, ¶ 6 (“The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure

to comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.”).

{¶3} Mr. Lagway was required to pay the cost deposit, as required by this Court’s Local

Rules, or comply with R.C. 2969.25(C). Mr. Lagway did not pay the cost deposit when he filed 2

the petition. He did move to waive prepayment of the cost deposit. That motion, however, failed

to comply with the requirement that Mr. Lagway file a statement of his inmate trust account

showing the balance for each of the six months preceding the filing of his action, as certified by

the institutional cashier.

{¶4} The Supreme Court has held that failure to pay the cost deposit or seek a waiver

supported by the statutorily mandated documents requires dismissal of the case. Dunkle v. Hill,

2021-Ohio-3835, ¶ 7. Moreover, R.C. 2969.25(C) does not permit substantial compliance. See,

e.g., State ex rel. Roden v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2020-Ohio-408, ¶ 8. See also State ex

rel. Swain v. Adult Parole Auth., 2017-Ohio-9175, ¶ 2 (“Noncompliance with the mandatory

requirements of R.C. 2969.25 is fatal” to an action.). Because Mr. Lagway did not comply with

the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25, this case is dismissed. Costs are taxed to Mr.

Lagway.

{¶5} The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default notice

of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58.

JENNIFER HENSAL FOR THE COURT

SUTTON, J. STEVENSON, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

WILLIE LAGWAY, Pro Se, Relator.

ELLIOT KOLKOVICH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JENNIFER M. PIATT, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondents.