State ex rel. Foster v. Belmont Cty. Court of Common Pleas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Foster v. Belmont Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2005-Ohio-1353.] STATE OF OHIO, BELMONT COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT STATE EX REL. KENT C. FOSTER, RELATOR, VS. BELMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 04-BE-55 OPINION and JOURNAL ENTRY CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Petition for Writ of Prohibition JUDGMENT: Petition Dismissed APPEARANCES: For Petitioner: Kent C. Foster, Pro Se #A246-042 Chillicothe Corrections Institution P.O. Box 5500 Chillicothe, Ohio 45601 For Respondents: Attorney Chris Berhalter Prosecuting Attorney Atty. Robert W. Quirk Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 147-A West Main Street St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950 Attorney Jim Petro Attorney General Attorney Jerri L. Fosnaught Assistant Attorney General Corrections Litigation Section 150 E. Gay St., 16th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 JUDGES: -2- Hon. Gene Donofrio Hon. Cheryl L. Waite Hon. Mary DeGenaro Dated: March 16, 2005 PER CURIAM. {¶1} Relator, Kent C. Foster, has filed an application for writ of prohibition, and according to the information on his application, is an inmate in a correctional facility. R.C. 2969.25 requires an inmate, at the time he or she commences a civil action against a government entity or employee, to attach an affidavit of all civil actions filed by him or her within the past five years. If an inmate fails to comply with R.C. 2969.25, his or her complaint for an original action will be dismissed. See State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 696 N.E.2d 594; State ex rel. Williams v. Markus, 8th Dist. No. 82440, 2003-Ohio-660, at ¶ 4. {¶2} In this case, relator has failed to attach an affidavit as required by R.C. 2969.25. Moreover, although relator lists respondents as BELMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, et al. the caption does not include any individual or the addresses of all the parties, as required by Civ.R. 10(A). Relator also seeks relief from the Belmont County Prosecuting Attorney s Office and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. The failure to properly caption an original action is sufficient grounds for denying the writ and dismissing the petition. See Chisum v. Accused, 8th Dist. No. 82798, 2003-Ohio-2876, at ¶ 8, citing to State ex rel. Sherrills v. State (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 133, 742 N.E.2d 651. Additionally, relator s application does not reflect a certificate of service on any of the respondents. {¶3} Accordingly, relator s petition for writ of prohibition is dismissed. Court costs of this action are assessed to relator. Donofrio, P.J., concurs. Waite, J., concurs. DeGenaro, J., concurs.
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.
