State ex rel. Nash v. Donnelly
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Nash v. Donnelly, 2010-Ohio-4370.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95497 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. TIMOTHY M. NASH RELATOR vs. MICHAEL P. DONNELLY, JUDGE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 436880 Order No. 437264 RELEASE DATE: September 15, 2010 2 FOR RELATOR Timothy M. Nash, pro se Inmate No. 100716 P.O. Box 5600 Cuyahoga County Jail Cleveland, Ohio 44101 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR. J.: {¶ 1} Relator, Timothy Nash, is the defendant in State v. Nash, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-493755, which has been assigned to respondent judge. Respondent issued an entry received for filing on July 20, 2007, and stating: Case dismissed at prosecutor s request. Final. Nash requests that this court issue a writ of mandamus compelling respondent to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the various motions filed by Nash after the state dismissed Case No. CR-493755. 3 {¶ 2} Respondent has filed a motion for summary judgment attached to which is a copy of the July 20, 2007 dismissal of Case No. CR-493755. Respondent argues that he does not have a duty to rule on the motions because the state dismissed Case No. CR-493755. Nash, however, contends that Case No. CR-493755 was a sham legal process, and that respondent does have a duty to rule on his motions. Brief in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, at 2. {¶ 3} We need not reach the parties arguments, however, because the complaint and supporting materials have several defects requiring that we enter judgment for respondent. {¶ 4} Nash s complaint and supporting documentation are defective in ways that require dismissal. He has not attached an affidavit describing each civil action or appeal filed within the previous five years in any state or federal court. In fact, he states that he can not remember all the civil actions that have been taken * * *. Complaint, at 3-4. His failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 requires the dismissal of his complaint for a writ of mandamus. State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 1998-Ohio-218, 696 N.E.2d 594; Alford v. Winters, 80 Ohio St.3d 285, 1997-Ohio-117, 685 N.E.2d 1242. Additionally, Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) requires that the relator in an original action support the complaint with an affidavit specifying the details of the claim. The affidavit must also be notarized. State ex rel. McGrath v. McDonnell, Cuyahoga 4 App. No. 87368, 2006-Ohio-535. Nash s Affidavit of Verity is not notarized and, therefore, fails to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). We also note that the affidavit of indigency accompanying the complaint was notarized in May 2010, although the complaint was filed in August 2010. {¶ 5} Nash asserts, however, that this court should not require an affidavit because notary services are not available to him in the Cuyahoga County Jail. He has not, however, provided this court with any controlling authority which exempts him from the requirement that he provide notarized affidavits. {¶ 6} Accordingly, respondent s motion for summary judgment is granted. Relator to pay costs. The clerk is directed to serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B). Writ denied. FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR. JUDGE PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, P.J., and JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., CONCUR
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
