Wainwright v. State Adult Parole Auth.
This text of 2025 Ohio 1495 (Wainwright v. State Adult Parole Auth.) 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 Wainwright v. State Adult Parole Auth., 2025-Ohio-1495.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN )
STATE EX REL. DWIGHT C.A. No. 25CA012244 WAINWRIGHT
Relator
v.
STATE OF OHIO ADULT PAROLE ORIGINAL ACTION IN AUTHORITY MANDAMUS
Respondent
Dated: April 28, 2025
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Relator, Dwight Wainwright, has petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus
asking this Court to order Respondent, State of Ohio Adult Parole Authority, to conduct a proper
investigation. Because Mr. Wainwright 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 Adult Parole Authority is a government
entity, and Mr. Wainwright, incarcerated in the Lorain Correctional Institution, 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. Wainwright failed to pay the cost deposit required by this Court’s Local Rules.
He also failed to 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.
Here, Mr. Wainwright 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).
{¶4} Because Mr. Wainwright failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of
R.C. 2969.25, this case is dismissed. Further, because this case must be dismissed, this Court
need not address any defects in the complaint, including the failure to provide an address for
service on Respondent.
{¶5} Costs taxed to Mr. Wainwright. 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:
DWIGHT WAINWRIGHT, Pro Se, Relator.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 Ohio 1495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wainwright-v-state-adult-parole-auth-ohioctapp-2025.