State ex rel. Howard v. Turner
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Ohio?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Ohio. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the complaint for a writ of mandamus filed by Appellant, an inmate, holding that compliance with Ohio Rev. Code 2969.26(A) is mandatory and that an inmate’s failure to comply with the statute warrants dismissal of the inmate’s action.
Appellant, an inmate at the North Central Correctional Institution (NCCI), filed his complaint for a writ of mandamus against three employees of the NCCI. NCCI moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court of appeals granted the motion because, among other things, Appellant failed to attach a proper affidavit as required by section 2969.26(A). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed Appellant’s complaint due to noncompliance with section 2969.26(A).
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Howard v. Turner, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-759.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2019-OHIO-759 THE STATE EX REL. HOWARD, APPELLANT, v. TURNER, WARDEN ET AL., APPELLEES. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Howard v. Turner, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-759.] Mandamus—An inmate’s failure to comply with R.C. 2969.26(A) warrants dismissal—Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed. (No. 2018-0824—Submitted January 29, 2019—Decided March 6, 2019.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-18-04. ________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the Third District Court of Appeals’ judgment dismissing the complaint of appellant, Jeffery L. Howard, for a writ of mandamus. {¶ 2} Howard is an inmate at the North Central Correctional Institution. In February 2018, Howard filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus against three employees of the North Central Correctional Institution: appellees, Warden Neil SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Turner, Inspector Lorri Shuler, and Finance Manager R. Boden (collectively, “NCCI”). Howard alleged that NCCI improperly reduced his inmate-account balance, leaving him without money to pay for copies of grievances and decisions. Howard made ten requests for relief, generally seeking the return of his inmate funds, to prevent NCCI from reducing his account to zero, and to provide free grievance and disciplinary forms. {¶ 3} NCCI moved to dismiss Howard’s complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). In May 2018, the court of appeals granted the motion for three reasons, including Howard’s failure to attach a proper affidavit as required by R.C. 2969.26(A). {¶ 4} R.C. 2969.26(A) requires that if an inmate commences a civil action against a government entity and the claim is subject to the prison’s grievance system, the inmate “shall file both” of the following with the complaint: “(1) [a]n affidavit stating that the grievance was filed and the date on which the inmate received the decision regarding the grievance” and “(2) [a] copy of any written decision regarding the grievance from the grievance system.” {¶ 5} Howard acknowledges that his claims were subject to the institution’s grievance process. Howard admits that he did not comply with R.C. 2969.26(A) but argues that the statute’s requirements should not apply to him, because he is unable to pay for copies of the required grievance decisions since he has no funds in his inmate account. Howard cites no statutes or administrative rules to support his argument. {¶ 6} R.C. 2969.26(A) uses the word “shall,” which is mandatory, Miller v. Miller, 132 Ohio St.3d 424, 2012-Ohio-2928, 973 N.E.2d 228, ¶ 28. Accordingly, courts of appeals have uniformly concluded that the failure to follow the requirements of R.C. 2969.26(A) warrants dismissal of the inmate’s action. Hamilton v. Wilkinson, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-502, 2004-Ohio-6982, ¶ 12; Warwick v. DeWitt, 4th Dist. Ross No. 01CA2613, 2002 WL 59667, *2 (Jan. 15, 2002); Boylen v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 182 Ohio App.3d 265, 2009-Ohio- 2 January Term, 2019 1953, 912 N.E.2d 624, ¶ 28-29 (5th Dist.); Blackford v. Noble Corr. Inst., 7th Dist. Noble No. 10-NO-373, 2011-Ohio-3369, ¶ 20; State ex rel. Bloodworth v. Bogan, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2016-05-043, 2017-Ohio-7810, ¶ 26. We agree and hold that compliance with R.C. 2969.26(A) is mandatory and that an inmate’s failure to comply with the statute warrants dismissal of the inmate’s action. {¶ 7} The court of appeals correctly dismissed Howard’s complaint due to noncompliance with R.C. 2969.26(A). Judgment affirmed. O’CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., concur. KENNEDY, J., concurs in judgment only. _________________ Jeffery L. Howard, pro se. Mansour Gavin, L.P.A., and Edward O. Patton, for appellees. _________________ 3
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.
