Thomson v. Gibson

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 17, 2026
• Docket: 31871
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Thomson v. Gibson, 2026-Ohio-2288.]

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

JASEN ERIK THOMSON C.A. No. 31871

Petitioner

v.

JOSEPH GIBSON, ET AL. ORIGINAL ACTION IN Respondents PROHIBITION

Dated: June 17, 2026

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} Jasen Thomson has petitioned this Court for a writ of prohibition. Because Mr.

Thomson failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25, this Court must

dismiss this case.

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

action against a government employee. The Summit County Sheriff’s Department is a government

entity, and Mr. Thomson, incarcerated in the Summit County Jail at the time his petition was filed,

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.

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

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

Because he failed to file an affidavit of prior civil actions, this case must be 2

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. Thomson was also required to pay the cost deposit, as required by this Court’s

Local Rules, or comply with R.C. 2969.25(C). Mr. Thomson did not pay the cost deposit when he

filed the petition, and he did not file an affidavit in compliance with R.C. 2969.25(C). 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.

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

2969.25(A) and (C), this case is dismissed. Costs taxed to Mr. Thomson.

{¶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(B).

JILL FLAGG LANZINGER FOR THE COURT

SUTTON, J. STEVENSON, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

JASEN E. THOMSON, Pro Se, Petitioner.

ELLIOT KOLKOVICH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JENNIFER M. PIATT, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondents.