On Wednesday, December 24, 2025, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the Fifth District Court of Appeals’ decision to dismiss a complaint filed by inmate John H. Mack Jr. against Richland County Court of Common Pleas Judge Brent N. Robinson.
The case, State ex rel. Mack v. Robinson, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-5681, centered on Mack’s attempt to obtain a writ of mandamus compelling Judge Robinson to comply with a prior court of appeals judgment in a separate appeal initiated by Mack.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals initially dismissed Mack’s complaint sua sponte, citing non-compliance with Ohio Revised Code (R.C.) 2969.25(A). This statute mandates that inmates filing civil actions against government entities or employees in a court of appeals must include an affidavit detailing all civil actions or appeals they have filed in any state or federal court within the preceding five years.
R.C. 2969.25(A) requires the affidavit to contain specific information, including a brief description of each action, the case name, case number, the court where the action was brought, the names of all parties involved, and the outcome of each case.
In his complaint, Mack included a list of prior civil actions, intending to meet the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A). However, the court found that the list was deficient as it did not provide the name of each action, the name of each party to each action, and was not presented in the form of a proper affidavit. While Mack did file an affidavit verifying his complaint, this affidavit did not incorporate or reference the list of prior actions.
The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with the lower court’s decision, emphasizing the mandatory nature of R.C. 2969.25(A) compliance. The court noted that Mack’s list failed to meet the statutory requirement of being contained within an affidavit, which necessitates a written declaration made under oath, complete with the signature and jurat of a notary public or other authorized officer. Because Mack’s list was not signed and lacked the necessary jurat, it did not qualify as a valid affidavit.
The Supreme Court cited State v. Henton, 2016-Ohio-1518, reinforcing that strict compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is required, irrespective of the inmate’s pro se status. The court concluded that the Fifth District Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Mack’s complaint due to his failure to strictly adhere to the statute’s requirements.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
