Davis v. Summit Cty. Common Pleas Court
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Davis v. Summit Cty. Common Pleas Court, 2019-Ohio-3869.] STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) )ss: ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT TRAVONTE DAVIS Petitioner C.A. No. 29533 v. SUMMIT COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT ORIGINAL ACTION IN HABEAS CORPUS Respondent Dated: September 25, 2019 PER CURIAM. {¶1} Travonte Davis has attempted to petition this Court for a writ of habeas corpus to order his release from custody. Because Mr. Davis has not complied with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25, this Court must dismiss the petition. {¶2} Mr. Davis completed a form titled “PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY A PERSON IN STATE CUSTODY.” He completed the 15-page form and filed it with the Summit County Clerk of Courts. On the form, he identified himself as the petitioner, but failed to indicate a respondent in the caption. He indicated in the body of the petition, however, that he challenged the judgment of the Summit County Common Pleas Court. {¶3} In addition to other defects with his petition, Mr. Davis failed to comply with the statutory filing mandate that requires this Court to dismiss this case. R.C. 2969.25 sets forth specific filing requirements for inmates who file a civil action against C.A. No. 29533 Page 2 of 3 a government employee or entity. As noted above, Mr. Davis identified the Summit County Court of Common Pleas on the cover of his petition, without identifying any other respondent; the court of common pleas is a government entity. Mr. Davis, incarcerated in the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, is an inmate. R.C. 2969.21(C) and (D). A case must be dismissed if an inmate fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25 in the commencement of the action. State ex rel. Graham v. Findlay Mun. Court, 106 Ohio St.3d 63, 2005-Ohio-3671, ¶ 6 (“The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.”). {¶4} Mr. Davis did not pay the cost deposit required by this Court’s Local Rules. He also failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), which sets forth specific requirements for an inmate who seeks to proceed without paying the cost deposit. Mr. Davis did not file an affidavit of indigency and he did not file a statement of his prisoner trust account that sets forth the balance in his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier. {¶5} Because Mr. Davis did not comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25, the case is dismissed. Costs taxed to Mr. Davis. {¶6} The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58. THOMAS A. TEODOSIO FOR THE COURT CARR, J. HENSAL, J. C.A. No. 29533 Page 3 of 3 CONCUR. APPEARANCES: TRAVONTE DAVIS, Pro se, Petitioner.
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.
