[Cite as Durst v. Conway, 2020-Ohio-51.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
HURON COUNTY
McClain L. Durst Court of Appeals No. H-19-022
Relator
v.
James W. Conway DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Respondent Decided: January 9, 2020
*****
McClain L. Durst, pro se.
*****
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on the petition of McClain L. Durst, a pro se
inmate, for a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, Hon. James W. Conway, to rule on
relator’s “Motion to Compel” and “Motion for Extension of Time.” Upon review, we
find that relator’s petition must be dismissed as fatally defective because it fails to
comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C).
{¶ 2} R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) and (2) require an inmate to include “[a] statement that
sets forth the balance in the inmate account of the inmate for each of the preceding six
months, as certified by the institutional cashier,” and “[a] statement that sets forth all
other cash and things of value owned by the inmate at that time.” Here, while relator has
submitted an affidavit of indigence, he does not include either of the statements required
by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) and (2).
{¶ 3} “Noncompliance with [R.C. 2969.25(C)] is fatal and provides a sufficient
basis for dismissing a petition.” Willis v. Turner, 150 Ohio St.3d 379, 2017-Ohio-6874,
81 N.E.3d 1252, ¶ 7. Therefore, relator’s petition is facially defective.1
{¶ 4} Accordingly, upon due consideration, relator’s petition for a writ of
mandamus is not well-taken, and it is hereby dismissed. The costs of this action are
assessed to relator.
{¶ 5} The clerk is directed to serve upon the parties, within three days, a copy of
this decision in a manner prescribed by Civ.R. 5(B).
Writ denied.
1
Moreover, relator has not captioned his petition “in the name of the state on the relation
of the person applying” as required by R.C. 2731.04. See Blankenship v. Blackwell, 103
Ohio St.3d 567, 2004-Ohio-5596, 817 N.E.2d 382, ¶ 34-36 (an uncorrected failure to
properly caption the petition for mandamus in accordance with R.C. 2731.04 is grounds
for dismissal).
2.
Durst v. Conway
C.A. No. H-19-022
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Arlene Singer, J.
_______________________________
Thomas J. Osowik, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
3.