State ex rel. Washington v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

87 Ohio St.3d 258

.]




    THE STATE EX REL. WASHINGTON, APPELLANT, v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE
                                AUTHORITY, APPELLEE.
 [Cite as State ex rel. Washington v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 

1999-Ohio-53

.]
Mandamus sought to compel Ohio Adult Parole Authority to release relator on
        parole, or alternatively, order a new parole revocation hearing—
        Dismissal of complaint affirmed.
     (No. 99-1005–Submitted October 12, 1999–Decided December 1, 1999.)
      APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 98AP-73.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} In 1998, appellant, Robert H. Washington, Jr., an inmate at London
Correctional Institution, filed a complaint in the court of appeals for a writ of
mandamus to compel appellee, Ohio Adult Parole Authority (“APA”), to release
him on parole, or alternatively, order a new parole revocation hearing. Washington
claimed that the APA used incompetent evidence to revoke his parole. Washington
did not file with his complaint an affidavit describing each civil action or appeal of
a civil action he had filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court,
and his affidavit of indigency did not contain a statement setting forth the balance
in his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the
institutional cashier. See R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C).
        {¶ 2} In 1999, the court of appeals dismissed Washington’s complaint.
                                  __________________
        Robert H. Washington, Jr., pro se.
        Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Jihad M. Smaili, Assistant
Attorney General, for respondent.
                                  __________________
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 3} Washington asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his
mandamus action. Washington’s claims are meritless.
       {¶ 4} As the court of appeals properly concluded, Washington, who does
not claim that R.C. 2969.25 is inapplicable to mandamus actions, did not comply
with the mandatory requirements of that statute in commencing his action. See
State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd. (1998), 

82 Ohio St.3d 421, 422

, 

696 N.E.2d 594, 594-595

.
       {¶ 5} In addition, to the extent that Washington seeks release from prison,
mandamus is inappropriate. State ex rel. Larkins v. Aurelius (1998), 

84 Ohio St.3d 112, 113

, 

702 N.E.2d 79, 79-80

.
       {¶ 6} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of
appeals.
                                                               Judgment affirmed.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                              __________________




                                        2