State ex rel. Swain v. Bartleson
Opinion
{¶ 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2009 Ohio 4690 (State ex rel. Swain v. Bartleson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.