State v. Velez

2026 Ohio 470

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 11, 2026
• Docket: 115848
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Velez, 2026-Ohio-470.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Respondent, : No. 115848 v. :

ANTONIO VELEZ, :

Relator. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: COMPLAINT DISMISSED DATED: February 11, 2026

Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 591005 Order No. 592022

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Craig A. McClelland, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.

Antonio Velez, pro se.

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.:

Antonio Velez (“Velez”), the relator, has filed a complaint for a writ of

mandamus. Judge Cassandra Collier-Williams (“Judge Collier-Williams”) has filed a motion to dismiss based upon numerous procedural defects.1 We grant the

motion to dismiss because the complaint is improperly captioned pursuant to

Civ.R. 10(C), Velez has failed to comply with R.C. 2731.04 that requires an action in

mandamus be brought in the name of the state on relation of the person applying,

and Velez has not complied with R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C).

A. Failure to Comply With Civ.R. 10(A)

Civ.R. 10(A) states that the caption of a complaint must include “the

names and addresses of all the parties . . . .” Velez has not included the addresses of

any parties in the caption of his complaint. It is well-settled that the failure to

properly caption a mandamus action is sufficient grounds for denying the

writ. State ex rel. Sherrills v. State, 91 Ohio St.3d 133, 133 (2001); Scott v.

Sargeant, 2009-Ohio-1745, ¶ 5 (6th Dist.); State v. Elder, 2014-Ohio-871, ¶ 4 (11th

Dist.), citing Snype v. Enlow, 2012-Ohio-1272, ¶ 4 (11th Dist.); State v. Lacy, 2014-

Ohio-3858, ¶ 3 (6th Dist.). The failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A), 2969.25(C),

and Civ.R. 10(A) prevents this court from granting the request for a writ of

mandamus.

B. Failure to Comply With R.C. 2731.04

Also, Velez’s complaint is defective because the caption is improper.

Velez styled his complaint for mandamus “State of Ohio v. Antonio Velez.”

1 We are not addressing the facts of this original action because it does not meet the

threshold procedural requirements in order to proceed forward with a merit-based analysis. R.C. 2731.04 requires that an application for a writ of mandamus must be by petition

and in the name of the state on the relation of the person applying. The failure to

properly caption a mandamus action is sufficient grounds for denying the writ and

dismissing the petition. Blankenship v. Blackwell, 2004-Ohio-5596, ¶ 34; Maloney

v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen Cty., 173 Ohio St. 226, 227 (1962); State v.

Bronston, 2012-Ohio-4611, ¶ 2 (8th Dist.). Moreover, the failure to caption the case

correctly creates uncertainty as to the identity of the respondent that provides an

additional, independent reason for dismissal. State ex rel. Ross v. State, 2004-

Ohio-1827, ¶ 8.

C. Failure to Comply With R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C)

Velez’s complaint for mandamus fails to contain a sworn affidavit that

contains a description of each civil action or appeal filed in the previous five years as

required by R.C. 2969.25(A). State v. Henton, 2016-Ohio-1518, ¶ 5. The complaint

also fails to contain a statement certified by the institutional cashier setting forth the

balance in the inmate’s account for the preceding six months as required by

R.C. 2969.25(C). State ex rel. Neil v. French, 2018-Ohio-2692, ¶ 7. The

requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory and failure to comply with them

requires dismissal. State ex rel. Marte v. N. Cent. Corr. Complex, 2026-Ohio-162,

¶ 10; State ex rel. Young v. Clipper, 2015-Ohio-1351, ¶ 8.

Accordingly, we grant Judge Collier-Williams’s motion to dismiss.

Costs to Velez. The court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties with notice of

this judgment and the date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B). Complaint dismissed.

_________________________ EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, A.J., and ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR