State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Parole Bd.

[Cite as State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Parole Bd., 2025-Ohio-3043.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State ex rel. Delanio L. Wright, :

Relator, : No. 25AP-162

v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR)

Ohio Parole Board, :

Respondent. :

D E C I S I O N

Rendered on August 26, 2025

On brief: Delanio L. Wright, pro se.

On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, Andrew Gatti, and

Jennifer A. Driscoll, for respondent.

IN MANDAMUS

MENTEL, J.

{¶ 1} Relator, Delanio L. Wright, brings this original action seeking a writ of

mandamus/prohibition ordering the respondent, Ohio Parole Board, to stop its actions

now and in the future because it has allegedly exceeded its jurisdiction. On March 7, 2025,

the respondent filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary

judgment.

{¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals,

this matter was referred to a magistrate. On May 29, 2025, the magistrate issued the

appended decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, recommending this

court grant the respondent’s motion to dismiss Wright’s original action seeking a writ of

mandamus/prohibition. The magistrate concluded that Wright failed to comply with R.C.

2969.25(C)(1). Specifically, Wright failed to include a statement that sets forth the required

No. 25AP-162 2

inmate account balance for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the

institutional cashier.

{¶ 3} Wright did not file objections in this case. “If no timely objections are filed,

the court may adopt a magistrate’s decision, unless it determines that there is an error of

law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision.” Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(c).

Our review of the magistrate’s decision reveals no error of law or other facial defect that

would preclude adopting it. See, e.g., State ex rel. Wyse v. Ohio Pub. Emp. Retirement Sys.,

2024-Ohio-314, ¶ 2 (10th Dist.). Accordingly, we adopt the magistrate’s decision as our

own, including findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. In accordance

with the magistrate’s decision, we grant the respondent’s motion to dismiss.

Motion to dismiss granted;

action dismissed.

DORRIAN and BEATTY BLUNT, JJ., concur.

_____________

No. 25AP-162 3

APPENDIX

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State ex rel. Delanio L. Wright, :

Relator, :

v. : No. 25AP-162

Ohio Parole Board, : (REGULAR CALENDAR)

Respondent. :

MAGISTRATE’S DECISION

Rendered on May 29, 2025

Delanio L. Wright, pro se.

Dave Yost, Attorney General, Andrew Gatti, and Jennifer A.

Driscoll, for respondent.

IN MANDAMUS/PROHIBITION

ON RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

{¶ 4} Relator, Delanio L. Wright, has commenced this original action seeking a

writ of mandamus/prohibition ordering respondent, Ohio Parole Board, to stop

respondent’s actions now and in the future because respondent exceeded its jurisdiction.

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss.

Findings of Fact:

{¶ 5} 1. Relator is an inmate incarcerated at Marion Correctional Institution.

{¶ 6} 2. Respondent is the Ohio Parole Board.

No. 25AP-162 4

{¶ 7} 3. On February 4, 2025, relator filed the instant mandamus/prohibition

action.

{¶ 8} 4. In his petition, relator alleges, generally, that respondent exceeded its

jurisdiction and lacked jurisdiction over the parole decisions entered in November 2016,

September 2019, July 2022, and January 2023.

{¶ 9} 5. Relator included with his petition an affidavit of indigency, to which he

attached an inmate demand statement. The statement provides, among other things,

transaction dates, transaction amounts, and a running savings balance, beginning

June 25, 2024, and ending December 16, 2024.

{¶ 10} 6. On March 7, 2025, respondent filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to

Civ.R. 12(B)(6) or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R.

56(C). In the motion, respondent raises five grounds for dismissal of relator’s petition:

(1) relator had an adequate remedy at law; (2) relator failed to comply with the

requirements of R.C. 2969.25; (3) relator’s action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata;

(4) relator’s petition is time barred under the applicable statute of limitation; and

(5) double jeopardy does not apply to sanctions imposed by parole violations.

{¶ 11} 7. On March 7, 2025, relator filed a motion for declaratory judgment.

{¶ 12} 8. On April 24, 2025, relator filed a response to respondent’s motion to

dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment.

{¶ 13} 9. On April 29, 2025, respondent filed a reply in support of its motion to

dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment.

Conclusions of Law:

{¶ 14} The magistrate recommends that this court grant respondent’s motion to

dismiss relator’s petition.

R.C. 2969.25 provides:

(C) If an inmate who files a civil action or appeal against a

government entity or employee seeks a waiver of the

prepayment of the full filing fees assessed by the court in

which the action or appeal is filed, the inmate shall file with

the complaint or notice of appeal an affidavit that the inmate

is seeking a waiver of the prepayment of the court’s full filing

No. 25AP-162 5

fees and an affidavit of indigency. The affidavit of waiver and

the affidavit of indigency shall contain all of the following:

(1) 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.

R.C. 2969.25.

{¶ 15} R.C. 2969.25 requires strict compliance. State ex rel. Swanson v. Ohio Dept.

of Rehab. & Corr., 2019-Ohio-1271, ¶ 6. Compliance with the provisions of R.C. 2969.25

is mandatory and the failure to satisfy the statutory requirements is grounds for dismissal

of the action. State ex rel. Washington v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 87 Ohio St.3d 258

(1999); State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421 (1998). Nothing in

R.C. 2969.25 permits substantial compliance. State ex rel. Manns v. Henson, 2008-Ohio-

4478, ¶ 4, citing Martin v. Ghee, 2002-Ohio-1621 (10th Dist.). Furthermore, the failure

to comply with R.C. 2969.25 cannot be cured at a later date by belatedly attempting to file

a compliant affidavit. State ex rel. Young v. Clipper, 2015-Ohio-1351, ¶ 9.

{¶ 16} A court may dismiss a complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) if, after all

factual allegations in the complaint are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are

made in relator’s favor, it appears beyond doubt that relator could prove no set of facts

entitling him or her to the requested extraordinary writ. State ex rel. Turner v. Houk,

2007-Ohio-814, ¶ 5. “Although factual allegations in the complaint are taken as true,

‘unsupported conclusions of a complaint are not considered admitted * * * and are not

sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.’ ” Justice v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins., 1998

Ohio App. LEXIS 6250, (10th Dist. Dec. 24, 1998), quoting State ex rel. Hickman v.

Capots, 45 Ohio St.3d 324 (1989).

{¶ 17} A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is procedural and tests the

sufficiency of the complaint itself and any attached documents. State ex rel. Hanson v.

Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 1992-Ohio-73, citing Assn. for the Defense of the

Washington Local School Dist. v. Kiger, 42 Ohio St.3d 116, 117 (1989). Attachments to

the complaint are considered part of the complaint for all purposes. Civ.R. 10(C).

Generally, in ruling on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion, a court “ ‘cannot resort to evidence

outside the complaint to support dismissal [except] where certain written instruments are

No. 25AP-162 6

attached to the complaint.’ ” Brisk v. Draf Indus., 2012-Ohio-1311, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.),

quoting Park v. Acierno, 2005-Ohio-1332, ¶ 29 (7th Dist.); see also Myers v.

Vandermark, 2024-Ohio-3205, ¶ 20 (7th Dist.) (finding that when a plaintiff relays

information in a complaint and in attachments, that information can be held against the

plaintiff in ruling on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion).

{¶ 18} In the present case, respondent raises five arguments in support of

dismissal of relator’s petition. Because the resolution of respondent’s second argument

that relator failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25 necessitates dismissal

of the petition, the magistrate addresses it first. Respondent contends that relator has

failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C), in that relator did not attach

the required inmate account balance for the preceding six months, as certified by the

institutional cashier. Relator did attach to his affidavit of indigency an inmate demand

statement. However, the inmate demand statement suffers from two fatal deficiencies.

First, the statement is not certified by the institutional cashier, as required by

R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). Second, the statement provides, among other things, transaction

dates, transaction amounts, and a running savings balance, beginning June 25, 2024, and

ending December 16, 2024. Relator filed his petition on February 4, 2025. “Preceding”

six-month period under R.C. 2969.25 means the period ending on the same numerical

day in the concluding month as the day of the month the petition was filed; R.C. 2969.25

does not require the statement to cover the last full calendar month. State ex rel.

Swanson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2021-Ohio-338, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.). Thus, in this

case, relator’s statement was required to at least cover the period of July 4, 2024, to

January 4, 2025. However, relator’s statement does not cover these dates. The statement

begins on June 25, 2024, but ends on December 16, 2024. Therefore, relator’s statement

is missing financial information for the second half of December 2024 and the first four

days of January 2025. Because relator’s affidavit of indigency does not contain a certified

statement that sets forth the balance in his inmate account for each of the preceding six

months, relator has failed to comply with the requirements in R.C. 2969.25(C), and his

petition must be dismissed. Given this determination, the magistrate need not address

respondent’s remaining arguments in support of dismissal.

No. 25AP-162 7

{¶ 19} Accordingly, it is the magistrate’s decision that this court should grant

respondent’s motion to dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus/prohibition.

Given this disposition, relator’s March 7, 2025, motion for declaratory judgment is

denied.

/S/ MAGISTRATE

THOMAS W. SCHOLL III

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) provides that a party shall not assign as

error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or

legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a

finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii),

unless the party timely and specifically objects to that factual

finding or legal conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b). A

party may file written objections to the magistrate’s decision

within fourteen days of the filing of the decision.