On Tuesday, December 23, 2025, Frederick M. Hill filed a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio, contesting a judgment from the Stark County Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate District.
The original case, designated as Case No. 2025 CA 00154 in the Court of Appeals, involves Hill as the Appellant/Relator and Judge Frank G. Forchione as the Appellee/Respondent. Hill is representing himself pro se in this matter.
The appeal stems from an original action initiated by Hill in the Court of Appeals, where he sought a writ of mandamus and prohibition against Judge Frank Forchione of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas. Specifically, Hill had filed a motion on November 10, 2025, requesting an in camera inspection of an unredacted affidavit and warrant dated April 12, 2017, along with all orders and findings related to the sealing of any case documents.
The Court of Appeals dismissed Hill’s motion. The court cited Ohio Revised Code (R.C.) 2731.04, stating that applications for a writ of mandamus must be made via petition, referencing the case Myles v. Wyatt, 62 Ohio St.3d 191 (1991).
Furthermore, the Court of Appeals identified several filing deficiencies concerning both the mandamus and prohibition actions. The court noted Hill’s failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25, which outlines specific filing requirements for inmates initiating civil actions against government employees or entities. The court emphasized that non-compliance with these mandatory requirements warrants dismissal, citing State ex rel. Graham v. Findlay Mun. Court, 2005-Ohio-3671, 6.
According to the judgment entry, Hill failed to file an affidavit describing each prior civil action or appeal filed within the preceding five years, as mandated by R.C. 2969.25(A). The court referenced State ex rel. Woods v. Jenkins, 2023-Ohio-2333, 4, quoting State v. Henton, 2016-Ohio-1518, 3, to support the claim that compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is mandatory and that failure to comply warrants dismissal.
Additionally, the court found that Hill neither paid the required cost deposit nor complied with R.C. 2969.25(C), which governs requests to waive prepayment of court costs. The court cited Dunkie v. Hill, 2021-Ohio-3835, stating that failure to pay the cost deposit or seek a waiver supported by the statutorily mandated documents requires dismissal.
The judgment entry, signed by Judge Andrew King, ordered the dismissal of Hill’s motion for in camera inspection of affidavits and warrants under seal, with costs assessed to the relator.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
