(A) At the time that an inmate commences a civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee, the inmate shall file with the court an affidavit that contains a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action that the inmate has filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court. The affidavit shall include all of the following for each of those civil actions or appeals:
(1) A brief description of the nature of the civil action or appeal;
(2) The case name, case number, and the court in which the civil action or appeal was brought;
(3) The name of each party to the civil action or appeal;
(4) The outcome of the civil action or appeal, including whether the court dismissed the civil action or appeal as frivolous or malicious under state or federal law or rule of court, whether the court made an award against the inmate or the inmate's counsel of record for frivolous conduct under section 2323.51 of the Revised Code, another statute, or a rule of court, and, if the court so dismissed the action or appeal or made an award of that nature, the date of the final order affirming the dismissal or award.
(B) If an inmate who files a civil action in a court of common pleas, court of appeals, county court, or municipal court or an inmate who files an appeal from a judgment or order in a civil action in any of those courts has filed three or more civil actions or appeals of civil actions in a court of record in this state in the preceding twelve months or previously has 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 asserted in the action or the issues of law raised in the appeal are frivolous or malicious under section 2969.24 of the Revised Code, any other provision of law, or rule of court.
(C) If an inmate who files a civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee seeks a waiver of the prepayment of the full filing fees assessed by the court in which the action or appeal is filed, the inmate shall file with the complaint or notice of appeal an affidavit that the inmate is seeking a waiver of the prepayment of the court's full filing fees and an affidavit of indigency. The affidavit of waiver and the affidavit of indigency shall contain all of the following:
(1) A statement that sets forth the balance in the inmate account of the inmate for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier;
(2) A statement that sets forth all other cash and things of value owned by the inmate at that time.
State ex rel. Parker Bey v. Ohio Bur. of Sentence Computation, 2021-Ohio-70. · cites it 37דThe magistrate determined that relator's failure to comply with the provisions of R.C. 2969.25 constitutes grounds for dismissal of the actions and has rec- ommended that this court grant the motion to dismiss filed in case No.”
State ex rel. Walker v. Bolin, 2024-Ohio-5126, 250 N.E.3d 31. · cites it 66דHowever, he said the cashier completed Form 2257 instead, because the Attorney General’s Office had instructed cashiers at Ohio’s prisons to use only Form 2257, “knowing full well that the [Form] 2257 would be inadequate to satisfy the requirements of [R.C. 2969.25].” 2 January…”
State ex rel. Neil v. French (Slip Opinion), 2018-Ohio-2692, 104 N.E.3d 764. · cites it 8דInstead, Neil implies that he is seeking relief because the court's failure to serve the judgment properly cost him his opportunity to appeal. But Judge French agrees that he was not properly served with a decision and that Neil therefore "can proceed with an appeal of the trial…”
State ex rel. Roden v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-408, 150 N.E.3d 905. · cites it 10ד3d 936 , ¶ 2 (“Noncompliance with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25 is fatal to a complaint for a writ of mandamus and warrants dismissal of the inmate’s action”).”
State ex rel. Swanson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-1271, 128 N.E.3d 193. · cites it 7ד" Two weeks later, the magistrate issued a nunc pro tunc decision indicating that Swanson had failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A), not (C). 2018-Ohio-3761 , 2018 WL 4462215 , ¶ 14 and fn.”
Westerfield v. Bracy, 2023-Ohio-499, 220 N.E.3d 799. · cites it 16ד] Habeas corpus—Inmate failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A)—Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing petition affirmed.”
State ex rel. Swopes v. McCormick, 2022-Ohio-4408, 218 N.E.3d 864. · cites it 11ד15(C), means that if a plaintiff amends his complaint after the statute of limitations has expired, the statute of limitations will not bar the claims asserted in the amended pleading. See LaNeve v.”
State ex rel. Pointer v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 2022-Ohio-3261, 209 N.E.3d 611. · cites it 26דThe magistrate further recommended denying Pointer’s motion for leave to amend his complaint because an R.C. 2969.25 defect “cannot be cured * * * by belatedly attempting to file a compliant affidavit.”
State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr (Slip Opinion), 2014-Ohio-3735, 17 N.E.3d 581. · cites it 9ד{¶ 2} The matter was referred to a magistrate, who determined that Hall failed to file with his complaint several of the documents required by R.C. 2969.25. Specifically, he failed to file an affidavit of prior civil actions, required by R.”
State ex rel. Parker Bey v. Ohio Bur. of Sentence Computation, 2021-Ohio-70. “The magistrate determined that relator's failure to comply with the provisions of R.C. 2969.25 constitutes grounds for dismissal of the actions and has rec- ommended that this court grant the motion to dismiss filed in case No.”
State ex rel. Swanson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-1271, 128 N.E.3d 193. “" Two weeks later, the magistrate issued a nunc pro tunc decision indicating that Swanson had failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A), not (C). 2018-Ohio-3761 , 2018 WL 4462215 , ¶ 14 and fn.”
Westerfield v. Bracy, 2023-Ohio-499, 220 N.E.3d 799. “] Habeas corpus—Inmate failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A)—Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing petition affirmed.”
State ex rel. Pointer v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 2022-Ohio-3261, 209 N.E.3d 611. “The magistrate further recommended denying Pointer’s motion for leave to amend his complaint because an R.C. 2969.25 defect “cannot be cured * * * by belatedly attempting to file a compliant affidavit.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2969.25(A)(1): 80 cases
State ex rel. Parker Bey v. Ohio Bur. of Sentence Computation, 2021-Ohio-70. “The magistrate determined that relator's failure to comply with the provisions of R.C. 2969.25 constitutes grounds for dismissal of the actions and has rec- ommended that this court grant the motion to dismiss filed in case No.”
State ex rel. Neil v. French (Slip Opinion), 2018-Ohio-2692, 104 N.E.3d 764. “Instead, Neil implies that he is seeking relief because the court's failure to serve the judgment properly cost him his opportunity to appeal. But Judge French agrees that he was not properly served with a decision and that Neil therefore "can proceed with an appeal of the trial…”
State ex rel. Walker v. Bolin, 2024-Ohio-5126, 250 N.E.3d 31. “However, he said the cashier completed Form 2257 instead, because the Attorney General’s Office had instructed cashiers at Ohio’s prisons to use only Form 2257, “knowing full well that the [Form] 2257 would be inadequate to satisfy the requirements of [R.C. 2969.25].” 2 January…”
State ex rel. Swopes v. McCormick, 2022-Ohio-4408, 218 N.E.3d 864. “15(C), means that if a plaintiff amends his complaint after the statute of limitations has expired, the statute of limitations will not bar the claims asserted in the amended pleading. See LaNeve v.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2969.25(C)(1): 180 cases
State ex rel. Roden v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-408, 150 N.E.3d 905. “3d 936 , ¶ 2 (“Noncompliance with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25 is fatal to a complaint for a writ of mandamus and warrants dismissal of the inmate’s action”).”
State ex rel. Walker v. Bolin, 2024-Ohio-5126, 250 N.E.3d 31. “However, he said the cashier completed Form 2257 instead, because the Attorney General’s Office had instructed cashiers at Ohio’s prisons to use only Form 2257, “knowing full well that the [Form] 2257 would be inadequate to satisfy the requirements of [R.C. 2969.25].” 2 January…”
State ex rel. Neil v. French (Slip Opinion), 2018-Ohio-2692, 104 N.E.3d 764. “Instead, Neil implies that he is seeking relief because the court's failure to serve the judgment properly cost him his opportunity to appeal. But Judge French agrees that he was not properly served with a decision and that Neil therefore "can proceed with an appeal of the trial…”
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.