State of Ohio ex rel. Bernard R. Keith, Relator,
Ohio Adult Parole Authority et al., Respondents.
MANDAMUS ON OBJECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
Bernard R. Keith, pro se.
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
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, ...