State ex rel. McCormick v. McLaughlin

2025 Ohio 1527

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 30, 2025
• Docket: 31440
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. McCormick v. McLaughlin, 2025-Ohio-1527.]

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

STATE EX REL. DARSHAWN T. MCCORMICK C.A. No. 31440 Relator

v. ORIGINAL ACTION IN KELLY L. MCLAUGHLIN MANDAMUS

Respondent

Dated: April 30, 2025

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} Relator Darshawn T. McCormick has filed a complaint seeking a writ of

mandamus directed to Respondent Judge Kelly L. McLaughlin. Because Mr. McCormick failed

to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25, this case must be dismissed.

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

action against a government employee or entity. Judge McLaughlin is a government employee

and Mr. McCormick, incarcerated in the Toledo Correctional Institution, is an inmate. 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, 106 Ohio St.3d 63, 2005-Ohio-3671, ¶ 6.

{¶3} Mr. McCormick moved to waive prepayment of the cost deposit. His motion

failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), which sets forth specific requirements for an inmate who

seeks to proceed without paying the cost deposit. Specifically, Mr. McCormick did not file a 2

statement of his prisoner trust account that sets forth the balance in his inmate account for each

of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier. Mr. McCormick filed a

statement that included the balance of his account for six months, but it was not the six months

immediately preceding the filing of his petition.

{¶4} The Supreme Court’s decisions make clear that 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. Failure to comply with these requirements, including attaching a statement that

does not cover the six months immediately preceding the filing of the action, warrants dismissal.

Russell v. Duffey, 2015-Ohio-1358, ¶ 11-12.

{¶5} In this case, the statement of the prisoner trust account covers the period from

August 2024 through January 2025. This case was filed in April 2025. Thus, Mr. McCormick

failed to file a statement of his prisoner trust account that covered the six months preceding the

filing of this action. Mr. McCormick failed to comply with this mandatory requirement and,

therefore, this Court must dismiss this action. Id.

{¶6} Because Mr. McCormick did not comply with the mandatory requirements of

R.C. 2969.25, this case is dismissed. Costs are taxed to Mr. McCormick. 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. See Civ.R. 58.

SCOT STEVENSON FOR THE COURT

CARR, J. SUTTON, J. CONCUR. 3

APPEARANCES:

DAJUAN MCCORMICK, Pro se, Relator.