State ex rel. Swain v. Bartleson

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Swain v. Bartleson

2009 Ohio 4690, 914 N.E.2d 403, 123 Ohio St. 3d 125

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 15, 2009

Docket2009-0804

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 2009 Ohio 4690 (State ex rel. Swain v. Bartleson) 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. Swain v. Bartleson, 2009 Ohio 4690, 914 N.E.2d 403, 123 Ohio St. 3d 125 (Ohio 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment dismissing the petition of appellant, inmate Sean Swain, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, the inspector of institutional services at Toledo Correctional Institution, to answer his grievances. “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; State ex rel. Manns v. Henson, 119 Ohio St.3d 348, 2008-Ohio-4478, 894 N.E.2d 47, ¶ 4. R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) required Swain, who filed a declaration of indigency in which he claimed an inability to pay the costs and fees associated with his mandamus case, to file a statement setting forth his inmate account “for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier.” He did not do so, and his claims on appeal concerning the inapplicability of R.C. 2969.25(A) are insufficient to justify reversal of a judgment that was properly premised in part on R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). We will not reverse a correct judgment simply because some or all of a lower court’s reasons are erroneous. State ex rel. Deiter v. McGuire, 119 Ohio St.3d 384, 2008-Ohio-4536, 894 N.E.2d 680, ¶ 21.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur. *126 Sean Swain, pro se. Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Melissa Montgomery, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

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

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment dismissing the petition of appellant, inmate Sean Swain, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, the inspector of institutional services at Toledo Correctional Institution, to answer his grievances. “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; State ex rel. Manns v. Henson, 119 Ohio St.3d 348, 2008-Ohio-4478, 894 N.E.2d 47, ¶ 4. R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) required Swain, who filed a declaration of indigency in which he claimed an inability to pay the costs and fees associated with his mandamus case, to file a statement setting forth his inmate account “for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier.” He did not do so, and his claims on appeal concerning the inapplicability of R.C. 2969.25(A) are insufficient to justify reversal of a judgment that was properly premised in part on R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). We will not reverse a correct judgment simply because some or all of a lower court’s reasons are erroneous. State ex rel. Deiter v. McGuire, 119 Ohio St.3d 384, 2008-Ohio-4536, 894 N.E.2d 680, ¶ 21.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur. *126 Sean Swain, pro se. Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Melissa Montgomery, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2009 Ohio 4690, 914 N.E.2d 403, 123 Ohio St. 3d 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-swain-v-bartleson-ohio-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack