Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State ex rel. Keith v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

May 3, 2018

State of Ohio ex rel. Bernard R. Keith, Relator,
v.
Ohio Adult Parole Authority et al., Respondents.

         IN MANDAMUS ON OBJECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION

          Bernard R. Keith, pro se.

          DECISION

          DORRIAN, J.

         {¶ 1} Bernard R. Keith, relator, has filed this original action requesting this court issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondent Ohio Adult Parole Authority to grant him a new parole hearing.

         {¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, this matter was referred to a magistrate who issued a decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, which is appended hereto. The magistrate recommends this court dismiss relator's mandamus action.

         {¶ 3} Under R.C. 2969.25(C)(1), the statement of the inmate account must be "for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier." The magistrate concluded relator failed to satisfy the mandatory filing requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C) because he failed to include a statement from the institutional cashier setting forth the balance of his inmate account for the month of July 2017. Thus, in a December 14, 2017 decision, the magistrate recommended sua sponte dismissal of the action and an order that relator pay the costs of the proceedings.

         {¶ 4} Relator filed an objection to the magistrate's decision pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b):

[T]he deficiency of the offending challenged document submission cannot be attributed to any action or inaction on the part of Relator.

         {¶ 5} Relator does not deny or dispute the findings of the magistrate as to the deficiency of the cashier's statement or the mandatory requirement of R.C. 2969.25(C). Rather, relator argues he should not be penalized and prejudiced for the actions of respondent, the institution's cashier's office, "for the faulty and deficient submission of a cashier's statement that has been previously complained of as being designed to deliberately sabotage/subvert Relator's filings." (Obj. at 2.) Relator further asks this court to consider "a continuing pattern of questionable antics [sic] that have culminated in the magistrate's recommendation that this action * * * be sua sponte dismissed." (Obj. at 3.) Finally, relator argues respondent has prevented him from making a determination as to the accuracy/validity of the cashier's statement as he was not permitted to examine the affidavit and cashier's statement prior to respondent filing the same. Relator asks this court to not charge him with the deficiency and to admonish and/or sanction respondent for having provided relator with a document that was known or should have been known to be non-compliant.

         {¶ 6} As the Supreme Court of Ohio has held, "[t]he requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory and failure to comply with them requires dismissal of an inmate's complaint." State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, 140 Ohio St.3d 297, 2014-Ohio-3735, ¶ 4, citing State ex rel. Washington v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 87 Ohio St.3d 258, 259 (1999). The magistrate relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State ex rel. Pamer v. Collier, 108 Ohio St.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-1507, in determining relator did not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) when he filed this action. In Pamer, the Supreme Court held R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) warranted dismissal of an inmate's complaint in mandamus where the inmate filed his action on September 19, 2005, but the statement of his inmate account covered the time period from March 1 through August 1, 2005. The court reasoned that because the inmate did not set forth the account balance for "the month immediately preceding his mandamus complaint, " August 2005, the inmate did not comply with the requirement in R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) that the statement of account set forth the balance in the inmate's account for each of the preceding six months. Id. at ¶ 5.

         {¶ 7} We agree with the magistrate that Pamer is binding here as the facts in Pamer are nearly identical to the facts in the present case. Like the inmate in Pamer, relator failed to provide a statement of the balance of his inmate account for the month immediately preceding his mandamus complaint. Relator concedes this point. Relator does not, however, point us to any case law or other authority which provides for an exception to Pamer for the reasons he posits in his brief. Accordingly, we are bound by Pamer in this case.

         {¶ 8} We find the magistrate discerned the pertinent facts and properly applied the relevant law to those facts. Because relator did not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C)(1), we adopt the magistrate's decision as our own, including the magistrate's findings of fact and conclusions of law. We decline, however, to impose costs on relator.

         {¶ 9} Accordingly, having adopted the magistrate's decision as our own, with the exception of imposing court costs on relator, we overrule relator's objection to the magistrate's decision. Accordingly, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.