The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContactEarn with us
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >Anderson v. Monroe Cty. Common Pleas Court
Ohio Court of Appeals

Anderson v. Monroe Cty. Common Pleas Court

22 MO 0019·Judge: Per Curiam0 citations·Filed April 25, 2023

Table of Contents

  • Summary of the case Anderson v. Monroe Cty. Common Pleas Court
  • Key Issues of the case Anderson v. Monroe Cty. Common Pleas Court
  • Key Facts of the case Anderson v. Monroe Cty. Common Pleas Court
  • Decision of the case Anderson v. Monroe Cty. Common Pleas Court
  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • [Cite as Anderson v. Monroe Cty. Common Pleas Court, 2023-Ohio-1343.] IN THE...

Table of Contents

  • Summary of the case Anderson v. Monroe Cty. Common Pleas Court
  • Key Issues of the case Anderson v. Monroe Cty. Common Pleas Court
  • Key Facts of the case Anderson v. Monroe Cty. Common Pleas Court
  • Decision of the case Anderson v. Monroe Cty. Common Pleas Court
  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • [Cite as Anderson v. Monroe Cty. Common Pleas Court, 2023-Ohio-1343.] IN THE...

Summary of the case Anderson v. Monroe Cty. Common Pleas Court

Brian L. Anderson filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus against Judge Julie R. Selmon of the Monroe County Common Pleas Court. The court dismissed the petition due to non-compliance with R.C. 2969.25, which mandates specific filing requirements for inmates. Anderson's affidavit failed to include necessary financial statements, leading to the dismissal of his case.

Key Issues of the case Anderson v. Monroe Cty. Common Pleas Court

  • Non-compliance with R.C. 2969.25
  • Filing requirements for inmate civil actions

Key Facts of the case Anderson v. Monroe Cty. Common Pleas Court

  • Anderson is an inmate at Noble Correctional Institution.
  • The petition lacked required financial statements.

Decision of the case Anderson v. Monroe Cty. Common Pleas Court

Dismissed

Opinions

[Cite as Anderson v. Monroe Cty. Common Pleas Court, 2023-Ohio-1343.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MONROE COUNTY BRIAN L. ANDERSON, Relator, v. MONROE COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT (JUDGE JULIE R. SELMON), Respondent. OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Case No. 22 MO 0019 Writ of Mandamus BEFORE: David A. D’Apolito, Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Judges. JUDGMENT: Dismissed.

Brian L. Anderson, Pro Se, #A796871, Noble Correctional Institution, 15708 McConnelsville Road, Caldwell, Ohio 43724, Relator and Atty. James L. Peters, Monroe County Prosecuting Attorney, 101 North Main Street, Room 15, Woodsfield, Ohio 43793, for Respondent.

Dated: April 25, 2023 –2– PER CURIAM. {1} Relator, Brian L. Anderson, brings this original action with a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus naming as Respondent, Monroe County Court of Common Pleas Judge Julie R. Selmon. Counsel for Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Because the petition does not comply with the mandatory filing requirements of R.C. 2969.25, this court must dismiss this action. {2} R.C. 2969.25 sets forth specific filing requirements for an inmate who files a civil action against a government employee or entity. In the present case, Respondent is a government employee and Relator, incarcerated in the Noble Correctional Institution, is a self-represented 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, 831 N.E.2d 435, 6 (“The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.”) Filing Fee Waiver {3} In an affidavit included with his petition, Relator states he is without the necessary funds to pay the costs of this action and is requesting the filing fee and security deposit be waived. R.C. 2969.25(C) applies when an inmate seeks a waiver of the prepayment of the filing fees: (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 fees and an affidavit of indigency. The affidavit of waiver and the affidavit of indigency shall contain all of the following: Case No. 22 MO 0019 –3– (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; (2) A statement that sets forth all other cash and things of value owned by the inmate at that time. {4} As indicated, Relator’s petition includes an affidavit averring he is without sufficient financial means to prepay or give security for the costs of this action. However, the affidavit does not include a statement that sets forth the balance in his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier. R.C. 2969.25(C)(1).

Nor does it include a statement that sets forth all other cash and things of value owned by Relator at the time he filed the petition. R.C. 2969.25(C)(2). {5} In light of these procedural deficiencies and on the court’s own motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Relator’s petition for a writ of mandamus is hereby DISMISSED. As a result, all remaining motions, including Respondent’s motion to dismiss, and unresolved filings are hereby dismissed as moot. {6} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Civ.R. 58, that the Clerk of the Monroe County Court of Appeals shall immediately serve upon all parties (including unrepresented or self-represented parties) notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Costs taxed to Relator. JUDGE DAVID A. D’APOLITO JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB Case No. 22 MO 0019

The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

[email protected]
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap