State ex rel. Parker v. Akron Police Dept.

2024 Ohio 2887

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 31, 2024
• Docket: 31155
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Parker v. Akron Police Dept., 2024-Ohio-2887.]

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

STATE OF OHIO EX REL. VINCENT C.A. No. 31155 ALAN PARKER

Relator

v.

AKRON POLICE DEPARTMENT ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS Respondent

Dated: July 31, 2024

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} Relator, Vincent Alan Parker, has petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus to

order respondent, Akron Police Department, to provide him with public records he requested.

Respondent filed an answer asserting that it had responded to his request and, among other things,

that Mr. Parker’s affidavit of prior civil actions was deficient. Because Mr. Parker did not comply

with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A), this Court must dismiss this action.

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

action against a government employee or entity. The Akron Police Department is a government

entity, and Mr. Parker, incarcerated in the Richland Correctional Institution, is an inmate. R.C.

2969.21(C) and (D). A case must be dismissed if an 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 C.A. No. 31155 Page 2 of 4

Mun. Court, 106 Ohio St.3d 63, 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} R.C. 2969.25(A) contains mandatory requirements that an inmate must comply

with. That section requires an inmate, at the time the inmate commences a civil action against a

government entity, to 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. For each action or appeal, the affidavit must contain specific information:

(1) A brief description of the nature of the civil action or appeal;

(2) The case name, case number, and the court in which the civil action or appeal was brought;

(3) The name of each party to the civil action or appeal;

(4) The outcome of the civil action or appeal, including whether the court dismissed the civil action or appeal as frivolous or malicious under state or federal law or rule of court, whether the court made an award against the inmate or the inmate’s counsel of record for frivolous conduct under section 2323.51 of the Revised Code, another statute, or a rule of court, and, if the court so dismissed the action or appeal or made an award of that nature, the date of the final order affirming the dismissal or award.

R.C. 2969.25(A)(1)-(4).

{¶4} Mr. Parker filed an affidavit of prior civil actions along with his complaint. In his

affidavit, he included some, but not all, of the required information. Specifically, the affidavit

failed to include the party names for every case. For example, in the first case, the affidavit only

provided the case name, so it is unclear who was named as the respondent. In the second case,

the affidavit again included only the case name. This time, the affidavit included the full name

for the respondent, but noted “et al” as part of the case name, without indicating who the other

parties to the case were. The failure to identify the party continues in other cases listed in the

affidavit, including the fifth, seventh, eighth, tenth, and twelfth cases. Upon review of the C.A. No. 31155 Page 3 of 4

affidavit, it is apparent that it does not comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C.

2969.25(A).

{¶5} “Compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is mandatory, and a failure to comply warrants

dismissal of the action.” State ex rel. Woods v. Jenkins, 2023-Ohio-2333, ¶ 4, quoting State v.

Henton, 2016-Ohio-1518, ¶ 3. This Court recently held that an affidavit’s failure to comply with

R.C. 2969.25(A) by providing incomplete information constituted a deficiency warranting

dismissal of the action. State ex rel. Gordon v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2023-Ohio-

4107, ¶ 6. Strict compliance with the statute is required by the Supreme Court’s decisions, and

noncompliance with the statutory requirements is fatal. Id. A deficient affidavit requires

dismissal of the action. Id.

{¶6} Mr. Parker’s affidavit failed to include information that must be included, pursuant

to R.C. 2969.25(A). Because Mr. Parker failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of

R.C. 2969.25(A), this case is dismissed.

{¶7} Costs taxed to Mr. Parker. 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(B).

BETTY SUTTON FOR THE COURT

HENSAL, J. FLAGG LANZINGER, J. CONCUR. C.A. No. 31155 Page 4 of 4

APPEARANCES:

VINCENT ALAN PARKER, Pro Se, Relator.

DEBORAH S. MATZ, Director of Law, and JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN, Assistant Director of Law, for Respondent.