[Cite as State ex rel. Sultaana v. Bova, 2014-Ohio-1737.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 100875
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.
HAKEEM SULTAANA
RELATOR
vs.
FRANK BOVA
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
WRIT DENIED
Writ of Mandamus
Motion Nos. 473168 and 473403
Order No. 473890
RELEASED DATE: April 18, 2014
-i-
RELATOR
Hakeem Sultaana
No. 0171385
P.O. Box 5600
Cleveland, Ohio 44101
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
Timothy McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: James E. Moss
Assistant County Prosecutor
9th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.:
{¶1} Hakeem Sultaana (“Sultaana”) has filed an application for a writ of
mandamus. Sultaana seeks an order from this court that requires respondent, Cuyahoga
County Sheriff Frank Bova (“Bova”), to comply with the provisions of a court order
entered in Cuyahoga C.P. Case No. CR-12-568418-A that granted Sultaana one hour
computer access daily for legal research only. Respondent has moved for summary
judgment, which Sultaana has opposed. Sultaana has also moved for summary judgment.
Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and relator’s motion for summary
judgment is denied for the reasons that follow.
{¶2} Sultaana’s application is defective in several respects that would warrant its
dismissal. See R.C. 2969.25(A) (“At the time that an inmate commences a civil action or
appeal against a government entity or employee, the inmate shall file with the court an
affidavit that contains a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action that the
inmate has filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court.”), Loc.App.R. 45
(“All complaints must contain the specific statements of fact upon which the claim of
illegality is based and must be supported by an affidavit from the plaintiff or relator
specifying the details of the claim. Absent such detail and attachment, the complaint is
subject to dismissal.”); Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 139,
2005-Ohio-5795, 841 N.E.2d 766; Barry v. Galvin, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
85990, 2005-Ohio-2324, ¶ 2, citing Allen v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen Cty., 173
Ohio St. 226, 181 N.E.2d 270 (1962). Sultaana did not fully comply with the foregoing
requirements.
{¶3} Sultaana’s affidavit specifying the details of his claim and his purported R.C.
2969.25(A) affidavit describing his civil actions in the past five years, are not notarized.
His description of his civil actions is wholly insufficient because it provides only partial
citations, no case numbers, and fails to identify the court in which the civil action or
appeal was brought in two of the three actions he listed. He also failed to identify the
outcome of the actions or appeals and did not describe the nature of any of the actions or
appeals.
{¶4} Sultaana’s affidavit of indigency is also not notarized, and he has not filed
the required certified cost statement that sets forth the balance in his inmate account for
each of the preceding six months. R.C. 2969.25(C). His unsworn statement that “it’s hard
to procure” an account statement does not relieve him of his obligation to comply with the
mandated statutory procedural requirements.
{¶5} R.C. 2731.04 requires an application for writ of mandamus to be verified. In
Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 2001-Ohio-49, 744 N.E.2d 763, the Supreme Court of
Ohio held, “‘Verification’ means a ‘formal declaration made in the presence of an
authorized officer, such as a notary public, by which one swears to the truth of the
statement in the document.’ Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (7 Ed.1999) 1556 * * *.” Id.
(reversing the court of appeal’s granting of the writ because the procedurally defective
petition should have been summarily dismissed); see also Griffin v. McFaul, 116 Ohio
St.3d 30, 2007-Ohio-5506, 876 N.E.2d 527, ¶ 4 (affirming denial of writ of habeas corpus
for reasons including that the “purported verification was ineffective because it was not
notarized.”) Sultaana’s application is not verified.
{¶6} Although Sultaana indicates that respondent does not offer notary services,
this does not exempt him from procedural compliance with the law that requires these
affidavits to be notarized. State ex rel. Campbell v. Russo, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95463,
2010-Ohio-4369, ¶ 11 (holding petitioner is not exempt from the requirement of providing
notarized affidavits on grounds that the county jail does not provide notary services).
{¶7} Any one of these pleading deficiencies would warrant dismissal. In addition,
Sultaana has not satisfied the requirements necessary for the issuance of a writ. Sultaana
must establish that: (1) Sultaana has a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) Bova has
a clear legal duty to perform the requested relief, and (3) there must be no adequate
remedy at law. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is to be exercised with
caution. “A writ of mandamus will not be granted if the relator has a plain and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law.” State ex rel. Weaver v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.,
116 Ohio St.3d 340, 2007-Ohio-6435, 879 N.E.2d 191 (affirming the dismissal of action
for writ of mandamus because inmate had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law through the filing of a motion for contempt); see also State ex rel. Ridenour v.
Hageman, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-858, 2007-Ohio-5863, ¶ 5 (holding common
pleas court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a motion to enforce an order issued by that court).
“The use of extraordinary relief to enforce a judgment is not widespread, because of the
availability of other means of enforcement, e.g., motion for contempt.” Dzina v.
Celebrezze, 108 Ohio St.3d 385, 2006-Ohio-1195, 843 N.E.2d 1202, ¶ 14. Sultaana has an
adequate remedy at law and, therefore, mandamus is inappropriate. Further, Sultaana has
not established that respondent has a clear legal duty to provide continued daily access to
the computer because there is a dispute as to whether Sultaana violated the court order
himself by utilizing the computer for reasons beyond legal research. Specifically, it was
averred that “Sultaana accessed the computer to be used for legal research in violation of
the rules and regulations of the CCCC and was consequently prohibited from using the
computer.”
{¶8} For all of the foregoing reasons, respondent’s motion for summary judgment
is granted, relator’s motion for summary judgment is denied. Relator to pay costs. The
court directs the clerk of court to serve all parties with notice of this judgment and its date
of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).
{¶9} Writ denied.
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR