[Cite as State ex rel. Ware v. Kurt, 2020-Ohio-3874.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO EX REL. KIMANI
WARE
C.A. No. 29622
Relator
v.
ORIGINAL ACTION IN
SANDRA KURT, SUMMIT COUNTY MANDAMUS
CLERK OF COURTS
Respondent
Dated: July 29, 2020
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Relator, Kimani Ware, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel Summit
County Clerk of Court Sandra Kurt to respond to his public records request. Ms. Kurt filed an
answer and moved for summary judgment. Mr. Ware also moved for summary judgment. Ms.
Kurt attached evidence to her motion for summary judgment showing that, after receipt of Mr.
Ware’s petition, she responded to the public records request.
{¶2} According to Mr. Ware’s complaint, in January 2019, he mailed an envelope
containing ten public records requests to the Summit County Clerk of Court’s Office. He
requested numerous documents including information related to employees, grand jury reports,
oaths of office, Clerk’s Office policies, budget information, dockets for a specific judge, and a
transcript from a specific case.
{¶3} In December 2019, after not receiving a response to his request, Mr. Ware filed
this mandamus action. Ms. Kurt filed an answer and a motion for summary judgment. According
C.A. No. 29622
Page 2 of 4
to the motion for summary judgment, about one month after this action was filed, an assistant
Summit County Prosecutor sent a letter to Mr. Ware indicating that she became aware of his
public records requests because they were attached to the petition. She also provided documents
responsive to many of his requests and explained why she was unable to respond to others.
{¶4} In her motion for summary judgment, Ms. Kurt argued the matter was moot
because she responded to Mr. Ware’s request. She also argued that she timely responded to the
request as soon as she was aware of it, and that her office had responded to several other requests
from Mr. Ware after January 2019. Mr. Ware also moved for summary judgment. He argued
that he was entitled to statutory damages of $1,000 because of Ms. Kurt’s delay in responding to
his requests.
{¶5} While it appears that this matter is ripe for decision, this Court must instead
dismiss it because Mr. Ware’s petition and supporting documents are fatally defective.
{¶6} R.C. 2969.25 sets forth specific filings requirements for inmates who file a civil
action against a government employee or entity. Sandra Kurt, the Summit County Clerk of
Courts, is a government employee. R.C. 2969.21. Mr. Ware, incarcerated in the Trumbull
Correctional Institution, is an inmate. R.C. 2969.21(C) and (D). A case must be dismissed if the
inmate fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25 in the commencement
of the action. State ex rel. Graham v. Findlay Mun. Court, 106 Ohio St.3d 63, 2005-Ohio-3671,
¶ 6 (“The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects
an inmate’s action to dismissal.”).
{¶7} An inmate seeking waiver of filing fees, as Mr. Ware did here, must file an
affidavit of indigency. The affidavit must include, among other things, “[a] statement that sets
forth the balance in the inmate account of the inmate for each of the preceding six months, as
C.A. No. 29622
Page 3 of 4
certified by the institutional cashier[.]” R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). The statute requires specific
information be provided: an affidavit that “does not include a statement setting forth the balance
in [an] inmate account for each of the preceding six months” fails to comply with R.C.
2969.25(C)(1). (Emphasis sic.) State ex rel. Roden v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Slip Opinion
No. 2020-Ohio-408, ¶ 6. Mr. Ware’s affidavit of indigency only states that he is without
sufficient funds to pay the filing fee and other costs. While the portion of the form completed by
the cashier covers a six-month period, it reports only aggregate totals, which does not comply
with the requirements of the statute. “‘R.C. 2969.25(C) does not permit substantial
compliance[,]’” it requires strict adherence by the filing inmate. Id. at ¶ 8, citing State ex rel. v.
Neil v. French, 153 Ohio St.3d 271, 2018-Ohio-2692, ¶ 7. Therefore, Mr. Ware has not complied
with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C)(1).
{¶8} An inmate must strictly comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25. State ex
rel. Swanson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 156 Ohio St.3d 408, 2019-Ohio-1271, ¶ 6. The
requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory and failure to comply with them requires dismissal
of an inmate’s complaint. State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, 140 Ohio St.3d 297, 2014-Ohio-3735, ¶ 4.
{¶9} Mr. Ware’s affidavit did not comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C.
2969.25 and, therefore, this case is dismissed. Because it was the filing of this action that
prompted a response to Mr. Ware’s public records request, however, no costs are taxed.
{¶10} 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.
THOMAS A. TEODOSIO
FOR THE COURT
C.A. No. 29622
Page 4 of 4
CARR, J.
HENSAL, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
KIMANI WARE, Pro se, Relator.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and COLLEEN SIMS, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for Respondent.
State ex rel. Ware v. Kurt
Combined Opinion