[Cite as Jackson v. May, 2019-Ohio-3896.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
MAURICE JACKSON : JUDGES:
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Petitioner : Hon. John W. Wise, J.
: Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
-vs- :
:
HAROLD MAY : Case No. 19CA49
:
Respondent : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Habeas Corpus
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: September 25, 2019
APPEARANCES:
For Petitioner For Respondent
MAURICE JACKSON DAVE YOST
Inmate #396-218 Ohio Attorney General
Richland Correctional Institution JERRI L. FOSNAUGHT
P.O. Box 8107 Assistant Attorney General
Mansfield, OH 44901 150 East Gay Street, 16th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Richland County, Case No. 19CA49 2
Wise, Earle, J.
{¶ 1} On June 3, 2019, Maurice Jackson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
contending his prison sentence terminated on April 12, 2017, and he is therefore being
wrongfully held under an expired prison term. Along with the filing of his petition, Mr.
Jackson requested waiver of prepayment of the full filing fees. However, in doing so, Mr.
Jackson failed to comply with the mandates of R.C. 2969.25(C), which requires an inmate
who seeks waiver of prepayment of the court’s filing fees to include in his or her affidavit
of indigency a statement setting forth the balance in their inmate account for each of the
preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier. “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. McGrath v. McDonnell, 126 Ohio St.3d 511, 2010-Ohio-4726, 935
N.E.2d 830, ¶1.
{¶ 2} Mr. Jackson subsequently filed a “Motion to Supplement the Record on
Appeal,” seeking to supplement his writ with the required documentation. In Boles v.
Knab, 129 Ohio St.3d 222, 2011-Ohio-2858, 951 N.E.2d 389, the Ohio Supreme Court
explained that delayed statements setting forth the account balance for a six-month
period are not permitted by R.C. 2969.25(C). The Court affirmed the court of appeals’
dismissal of petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus on this basis. Id. at ¶1.
{¶ 3} Under Boles, we deny Mr. Jackson’s request to supplement the record.
Further, because Mr. Jackson failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C.
2969.25(C) his writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.
Richland County, Case No. 19CA49 3
{¶ 4} 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. See Civ.R. 58(B).
By Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
Hoffman, P.J. and
Wise, John, J. concur.
EEW/ac