State ex rel. Williams v. State

2025 Ohio 2722

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 4, 2025
• Docket: 25CA012210
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Williams v. State, 2025-Ohio-2722.]

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

STATE EX REL. HOSIE WILLIAMS C.A. No. 25CA012210

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF OHIO ORIGINAL ACTION IN HABEAS Respondent CORPUS

Dated: August 4, 2025

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} Petitioner, Hosie Williams, has petitioned this Court for a writ of habeas corpus by

alleging that Respondent, the State of Ohio, has violated his right to a speedy trial. The State of

Ohio has moved to dismiss for a number of reasons, including that Mr. Williams failed to comply

with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25. Mr. Williams has not responded in opposition.

{¶2} Mr. Williams failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25,

which requires this Court to dismiss this case. Because we dismiss for this reason, we need not

reach the other defects in the petition that may also require dismissal.

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

action against a government employee or entity. The State of Ohio is a government entity, and

Mr. Williams, incarcerated in the Lorain County Jail, 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. 2

2969.25 in the commencement of the action. State ex rel. Graham v. Findlay Mun. Court, 2005-

Ohio-3671, ¶ 6.

{¶4} Mr. Williams failed to pay the cost deposit, as required by this Court’s Local Rules,

or comply with R.C. 2969.25(C). This section requires an inmate who seeks a waiver of the

prepayment of the cost deposit to file specific, statutorily required, information. In this case, Mr.

Williams neither paid the cost deposit nor sought a waiver of prepayment of the deposit. The

Supreme Court has held that failure to pay the cost deposit or seek a waiver supported by the

statutorily mandated documents requires dismissal of the case. Dunkle v. Hill, 2021-Ohio-3835,

¶ 7. Accordingly this case must be dismissed.

{¶5} Because Mr. Williams failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C.

2969.25, this case is dismissed. Costs taxed to Mr. Williams. 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).

SCOT STEVENSON FOR THE COURT

CARR, J. SUTTON, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

HOSIE WILLIAMS, Pro Se, Petitioner.

ANTHONY CILLO, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACOB W. PULLAR, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent.