Tayse v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas

2025 Ohio 1528

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 30, 2025
• Docket: 31436
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Tayse v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2025-Ohio-1528.]

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

STATE EX REL. JAMES TAYSE C.A. No. 31436

Relator

v.

SUMMIT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS GENERAL DIVISION ORIGINAL ACTION IN PROHIBITION Respondent

Dated: April 30, 2025

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} Relator, James Tayse, has petitioned this Court for a writ of prohibition asking this

Court to order Respondent, Summit County Court of Common Pleas, to vacate his underlying

criminal case and order his release or to properly commence criminal proceedings against him.

Because Mr. Tayse failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25, this case

must be dismissed.

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

action against a government employee or entity. The Summit County Court of Common Pleas is

a government entity, and Mr. Tayse, incarcerated in the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 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. 2969.25 in the commencement of the action. State ex rel. Graham

v. Findlay Mun. Court, 2005-Ohio-3671, ¶ 6. 2

{¶3} Mr. Tayse was required to file filed an affidavit of prior civil actions at the

commencement of this action. R.C. 2969.25(A). Mr. Tayse, however, only filed the complaint

seeking the writ of prohibition. Because he failed to file an affidavit of prior civil actions, this

case must be dismissed. “Compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is mandatory, and a failure to comply

warrants dismissal of the action.” State ex rel. Woods v. Jenkins, 2023-Ohio-2333, ¶ 4, quoting

State v. Henton, 2016-Ohio-1518, ¶ 3.

{¶4} Mr. Tayse also failed to pay the cost deposit 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. Tayse neither prepaid the cost deposit

nor sought a waiver of prepayment of the deposit. Accordingly this case must be dismissed.

Dunkle v. Hill, 2021-Ohio-3835, ¶ 7 (failure to pay the cost deposit or seek a waiver supported

by the statutorily mandated documents requires dismissal).

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

2969.25, this case is dismissed. Costs taxed to Mr. Tayse. 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:

JAMES TAYSE, SR., Pro Se, Petitioner.