State ex rel. Swain v. Bartleson

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State ex rel. Swain v. Bartleson, 123 Ohio St.3d 125, 2009-Ohio-4690.] THE STATE EX REL. SWAIN, APPELLANT, v. BARTLESON, APPELLEE. [Cite as State ex rel. Swain v. Bartleson, 123 Ohio St.3d 125, 2009-Ohio-4690.] Civil actions by prison inmates Affidavit requirement of R.C. Chapter 2969. (No. 2009-0804 Submitted September 2, 2009 Decided September 15, 2009.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-09-1047. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment dismissing the petition of appellant, inmate Sean Swain, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, the inspector of institutional services at Toledo Correctional Institution, to answer his grievances. The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate s action to dismissal. State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5; State ex rel. Manns v. Henson, 119 Ohio St.3d 348, 2008-Ohio-4478, 894 N.E.2d 47, ¶ 4. R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) required Swain, who filed a declaration of indigency in which he claimed an inability to pay the costs and fees associated with his mandamus case, to file a statement setting forth his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier. He did not do so, and his claims on appeal concerning the inapplicability of R.C. 2969.25(A) are insufficient to justify reversal of a judgment that was properly premised in part on R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). We will not reverse a correct judgment simply because some or all of a lower court s reasons are erroneous. State ex rel. Deiter v. McGuire, 119 Ohio St.3d 384, 2008-Ohio-4536, 894 N.E.2d 680, ¶ 21. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG O DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. STRATTON, O CONNOR, SUPREME COURT OF OHIO __________________ Sean Swain, pro se. Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Melissa Montgomery, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. __________________ 2

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.