State ex rel. Sheets v. Chief of Police, Cedar Point Police Dept. (Slip Opinion)

2015 Ohio 3309, 39 N.E.3d 520, 143 Ohio St. 3d 473
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 20, 2015
Docket2014-2166
StatusPublished

This text of 2015 Ohio 3309 (State ex rel. Sheets v. Chief of Police, Cedar Point Police Dept. (Slip Opinion)) 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. Sheets v. Chief of Police, Cedar Point Police Dept. (Slip Opinion), 2015 Ohio 3309, 39 N.E.3d 520, 143 Ohio St. 3d 473 (Ohio 2015).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We reverse the dismissal of this case in which appellant, Daniel Sheets, a federal inmate, made a public-records request of appellee, the chief of police of the Cedar Point Police Department. Sheets sued in mandamus on November 7, 2014, in the Sixth District Court of Appeals, alleging that respondent failed to provide the requested records.

{¶ 2} Appellee filed no response to the complaint, but on December 2, 2014, the court of appeals nevertheless dismissed the case, finding that Sheets failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C)(2), which requires that an inmate’s affidavit of indigency in a suit against a government entity or employee contain a statement of the inmate’s assets.

{¶ 3} Sheets argues in his brief that R.C. 2969.25(C) should not apply to him because he is not filing a civil action against a government entity or employee. However, Sheets also asserts in his complaint that appellee is “a governmental employee,” that he “performs a governmental function,” and that he “operates on behalf of the state.” Sheets’s arguments are therefore without merit.

{¶ 4} However, the definition of “inmate” for purposes of R.C. 2969.25 is “a person who is in actual confinement in a state correctional institution.” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2969.21(D). The definition does not include persons in confinement in federal prison. Id. Sheets is an inmate in a federal prison, not a state prison. For that reason, the court of appeals erred in dismissing Sheets’s complaint for failing to comply with R.C. 2969.25.

*474 Daniel Sheets, pro se.

{¶ 5} We therefore reverse the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Lanzinger, J., concurs in judgment only.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2015 Ohio 3309, 39 N.E.3d 520, 143 Ohio St. 3d 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-sheets-v-chief-of-police-cedar-point-police-dept-slip-ohio-2015.