State ex rel. Norris v. Giavasis

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Norris v. Giavasis

2003 Ohio 6609, 800 N.E.2d 365, 100 Ohio St. 3d 371

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 31, 2003

Docket2003-1478

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 2003 Ohio 6609 (State ex rel. Norris v. Giavasis) 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.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Norris v. Giavasis, 2003 Ohio 6609, 800 N.E.2d 365, 100 Ohio St. 3d 371 (Ohio 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} On July 24, 2003, appellant, Robert Lee Norris, an inmate, filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Stark County. Norris sought a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, Stark County Common Pleas Court Clerk Phil G. Giavasis and Deputy Clerk A. Gifford, to remove from their records “the July 11, 2003 Appearance Docket and each of its entries” and to retain “the certified ‘June 25, 2002’ Appearance Docket.” The docket entries were of his criminal case stemming from a 1992 indictment.

{¶ 2} Norris filed an affidavit that he claimed listed his prior “civil actions and criminal appeals within the preceding (5) five years pursuant to [R.C.] 2969.25.” The affidavit, however, did not contain a “brief description of the nature” of each civil action or appeal and the outcome of each civil action and appeal. R.C. 2969.25(A)(1) and (4). And although Norris requested a waiver of the filing fees assessed by the court of appeals based on his claimed indigency, his affidavit of indigency did not contain the statement required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) setting forth the balance in his inmate account “for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier.”

{¶ 3} On August 1, 2003, the court of appeals sua sponte dismissed Norris’s complaint.

*372 Robert Lee Norris, pro se.

{¶ 4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. “The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.” State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5. Norris failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) and 2969.25(C)(1). State ex rel. Kimbro v. Glavas, 97 Ohio St.3d 197, 2002-Ohio-5808, 777 N.E.2d 257, ¶ 2; White, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 2, 5.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} On July 24, 2003, appellant, Robert Lee Norris, an inmate, filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Stark County. Norris sought a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, Stark County Common Pleas Court Clerk Phil G. Giavasis and Deputy Clerk A. Gifford, to remove from their records “the July 11, 2003 Appearance Docket and each of its entries” and to retain “the certified ‘June 25, 2002’ Appearance Docket.” The docket entries were of his criminal case stemming from a 1992 indictment.

{¶ 2} Norris filed an affidavit that he claimed listed his prior “civil actions and criminal appeals within the preceding (5) five years pursuant to [R.C.] 2969.25.” The affidavit, however, did not contain a “brief description of the nature” of each civil action or appeal and the outcome of each civil action and appeal. R.C. 2969.25(A)(1) and (4). And although Norris requested a waiver of the filing fees assessed by the court of appeals based on his claimed indigency, his affidavit of indigency did not contain the statement required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) setting forth the balance in his inmate account “for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier.”

{¶ 3} On August 1, 2003, the court of appeals sua sponte dismissed Norris’s complaint.

*372 Robert Lee Norris, pro se.

{¶ 4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. “The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.” State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5. Norris failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) and 2969.25(C)(1). State ex rel. Kimbro v. Glavas, 97 Ohio St.3d 197, 2002-Ohio-5808, 777 N.E.2d 257, ¶ 2; White, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 2, 5.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2003 Ohio 6609, 800 N.E.2d 365, 100 Ohio St. 3d 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-norris-v-giavasis-ohio-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack