Thompson v. State
This text of 2023 Ohio 1739 (Thompson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as Thompson v. State, 2023-Ohio-1739.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
MONTY THOMPSON C.A. No. 30581 Petitioner
v. ORIGINAL ACTION IN STATE OF OHIO HABEAS CORPUS
Respondent
Dated: May 24, 2023
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Monty Thompson has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus using a form
document intended to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 2254. Because the document named the state of Ohio as the respondent, and noted that it
challenged the judgment of the Summit County Common Pleas Court, the Summit County
Prosecutor moved to dismiss. For the following reasons, this Court grants the motion and
dismisses the petition.
{¶2} The motion to dismiss identified a number of reasons why this Court should
dismiss the petition, including that Mr. Thompson failed to comply with the mandatory filing
requirements of R.C. 2969.25. This Court agrees that Mr. Thompson failed to comply.
{¶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 and the Summit County
Common Pleas Court are government entities. Mr. Thompson, incarcerated in the Trumbull
Correctional Institution, is an inmate. R.C. 2969.21(C) and (D). A case must be dismissed if the C.A. No. 30581 Page 2 of 2
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, 106 Ohio St.3d 63, 2005-Ohio-3671,
¶ 6 (“The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects
an inmate’s action to dismissal.”).
{¶4} Mr. Thompson failed to comply with any of the requirements of R.C. 2969.25.
He did not pay the cost deposit for filing this action or request a waiver of the cost deposit. R.C.
2969.25(C). Mr. Thompson also failed to comply with the requirement that he file an affidavit
of prior civil actions or appeals identifying all of the parties and all of the civil actions or appeals
he filed in the previous five years. R.C. 2969.25(A).
{¶5} Mr. Thompson failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C.
2969.25. Accordingly, this case is dismissed. Costs are taxed to Mr. Thompson.
{¶6} 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.
BETTY SUTTON FOR THE COURT
CARR, J. STEVENSON, J. CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
MONTY THOMPSON, Pro se, Petitioner.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2023 Ohio 1739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-state-ohioctapp-2023.