Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2969 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2969.24 (2026)

Dismissal of inmate's action or appeal

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
March 17, 1998
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 111 - 122nd General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) If an inmate files a civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee, the court in which the action or appeal is filed, on its own motion or on the motion of a party, may dismiss the civil action or appeal at any stage in the proceedings if the court finds any of the following:

(1) The allegation of indigency in a poverty affidavit filed by the inmate is false.

(2) The claim that is the basis of the civil action or the issues of law that are the basis of the appeal are frivolous or malicious.

(3) The inmate filed an affidavit required by section 2969.25 or 2969.26 of the Revised Code that was materially false.

(B) For the purposes of this section, in determining whether a claim that is the basis of the civil action or the issues of law that are the basis of the appeal are frivolous or malicious, the court may consider whether any of the following applies:

(1) The claim fails to state a claim or the issues of law fail to state any issues of law.

(2) The claim has no arguable basis in law or fact or the issues of law have no arguable basis in law.

(3) It is clear that the inmate cannot prove material facts in support of the claim or in support of the issues of law.

(4) The claim that is the basis of the civil action is substantially similar to a claim in a previous civil action filed by the inmate or the issues of law that are the basis of the appeal are substantially similar to issues of law raised in a previous appeal filed by the inmate, in that the claim that is the basis of the current civil action or the issues of law that are the basis of the current appeal involve the same parties or arise from the same operative facts as the claim or issues of law in the previous civil action or appeal.

(C) If a party files a motion requesting the dismissal of a civil action or appeal under division (A) of this section, the court shall hold a hearing on the motion. If the court raises the issue of the dismissal of a civil action or appeal under division (A) of this section by its own motion, the court may hold a hearing on the motion. If practicable, the court may hold the hearing described in this division by telephone or, in the alternative, at the state correctional institution, jail, workhouse, or violation sanction center in which the inmate is confined.

(D) On the filing of a motion for dismissal of a civil action under division (A) of this section, the court may suspend discovery relating to the civil action pending the determination of the motion.

(E) Divisions (A) to (D) of this section do not limit the authority of the court in which the civil action or appeal is filed to otherwise dismiss the civil action or appeal.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Heck v. Atakpu, 2024 Ohio 2733 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Heck v. Atakpu, 2024 Ohio 2733 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “He cites R.C. 2969.24(A), which authorizes the dismissal of an inmate’s civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee on the basis of frivolousness or maliciousness.”
Akbar-El v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 711 N.E.2d 236 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “been subject to the review procedure described in this division, the court may appoint a member of the bar to review the claim that is the basis of the civil action or the issues of law that are the basis of the appeal and to make a recommendation regarding whether the claim…”
Ohio Atty. Gen. v. Brock, 2015 Ohio 4173 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “{¶ 2} Brock argues that he is not a vexatious litigator because he should have been granted a mandatory hearing pursuant to R.C. 2969.24(C) prior to the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition which was filed in December 2013 in this court.”
Reginald Dion Hughes v. Tennessee Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 514 S.W.3d 707 (2017). “§ 1-110 (b); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2969.24 (A)(2); Oída.”
Tyack v. Mobley, 2023 Ohio 3227 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “52 and does not discuss R.C. 2969.24 or 2969.25. Because appellant has failed to provide this court with any legal authority supporting the conclusion that the trial court erred as a matter of law in declaring him a vexatious litigator, we find no merit to the argument.”
State ex rel. Royster v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 2016 Ohio 953 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “25(A), and clearly violates R.C. § 2969.24(A)(3). {¶ 9} 4. The magistrate also notes that the inmate demand statement relator filed showing the balance in his inmate account for the previous six months and shows that he currently owes a balance on federal filing fees and those…”
State ex rel. Cowell v. Croce (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 8132 (Ohio 2017). · cites it 2× “” R.C. 2969.24(A). But the court of appeals dismissed Cowell’s complaint because his affidavit contained insufficient information—not because it contained false information or was frivolous or malicious.”
State ex rel. Tayse v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas Gen. Div., 2025 Ohio 5403 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “See R.C. 2969.24(A)(2). Moreover, in its motion to dismiss, the Court of Common Pleas argues that Mr.”
Reginald Dion Hughes v. Tennessee Bd. of Prob. & Parole (Dissent) (2017). “§ 1-110 (b); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2969.24 (A)(2); Okla.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2969.24(A) — 3 cases
Heck v. Atakpu, 2024 Ohio 2733 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “He cites R.C. 2969.24(A), which authorizes the dismissal of an inmate’s civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee on the basis of frivolousness or maliciousness.”
State ex rel. Cowell v. Croce (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 8132 (Ohio 2017). “” R.C. 2969.24(A). But the court of appeals dismissed Cowell’s complaint because his affidavit contained insufficient information—not because it contained false information or was frivolous or malicious.”
Tyack v. Mobley, 2023 Ohio 3227 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “52 and does not discuss R.C. 2969.24 or 2969.25. Because appellant has failed to provide this court with any legal authority supporting the conclusion that the trial court erred as a matter of law in declaring him a vexatious litigator, we find no merit to the argument.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2969.24(A)(2) — 2 cases
Tyack v. Mobley, 2023 Ohio 3227 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “52 and does not discuss R.C. 2969.24 or 2969.25. Because appellant has failed to provide this court with any legal authority supporting the conclusion that the trial court erred as a matter of law in declaring him a vexatious litigator, we find no merit to the argument.”
State ex rel. Tayse v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas Gen. Div., 2025 Ohio 5403 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). “See R.C. 2969.24(A)(2). Moreover, in its motion to dismiss, the Court of Common Pleas argues that Mr.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2969.24(A)(3) — 1 case
State ex rel. Royster v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 2016 Ohio 953 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “25(A), and clearly violates R.C. § 2969.24(A)(3). {¶ 9} 4. The magistrate also notes that the inmate demand statement relator filed showing the balance in his inmate account for the previous six months and shows that he currently owes a balance on federal filing fees and those…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2969.24(C) — 2 cases
Ohio Atty. Gen. v. Brock, 2015 Ohio 4173 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “{¶ 2} Brock argues that he is not a vexatious litigator because he should have been granted a mandatory hearing pursuant to R.C. 2969.24(C) prior to the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition which was filed in December 2013 in this court.”
State ex rel. Cowell v. Croce (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 8132 (Ohio 2017). “” R.C. 2969.24(A). But the court of appeals dismissed Cowell’s complaint because his affidavit contained insufficient information—not because it contained false information or was frivolous or malicious.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.