Noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(C) Is Not an Affirmative Defense; Institutional‑Cashier Certification of Inmate Account Statements Is Mandatory for Fee-Waiver Requests

Introduction

This commentary examines the Supreme Court of Ohio’s per curiam decision in State ex rel. Martin v. McCormick, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-4398, which affirms the Eighth District’s dismissal of an inmate’s procedendo action for failure to strictly comply with the inmate-filing requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C).

Appellant Tramaine E. Martin, an inmate at Noble Correctional Institution, sought a writ of procedendo compelling Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Timothy P. McCormick to rule on an allegedly pending successive postconviction petition. Along with his filing, Martin requested a waiver of the appellate filing fee and attached a six-month inmate-account statement that was not certified by the institutional cashier.

The case presented two key issues:

Whether an uncertified inmate-account statement satisfies the affidavit-of-indigency requirement for fee-waiver requests under R.C. 2969.25(C)(1); and
Whether noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(C) is an affirmative defense that can be waived if not raised in a responsive pleading.

The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal, holding that strict compliance with R.C. 2969.25(C) is required, that the account statement must be certified by the institutional cashier, and that noncompliance is not an affirmative defense but an essential component of commencing an inmate action.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo and limited itself to the record before the court of appeals. It declined to consider supplemental materials that were not part of the appellate record. On the merits, the Court held:

R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) requires an inmate seeking waiver of the filing fee to include an affidavit of indigency with a statement of the inmate’s account for each of the six months preceding filing, and that statement must be certified by the institutional cashier.
Strict compliance is required; substantial compliance is insufficient.
Noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(C) is not an affirmative defense and therefore is not waived if raised first in a motion for summary judgment.
Martin’s account statement lacked any indication of certification by the institutional cashier, so his petition failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), warranting dismissal.

Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Eighth District’s judgment granting the judge’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing the procedendo petition.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

State ex rel. Townsend v. Gaul, 2024-Ohio-1128 — The Court relied on Townsend to reaffirm that strict compliance with R.C. 2969.25(C) is mandatory for inmate civil actions against government entities or employees. This underscores that any defect in the fee-waiver package is fatal at the outset.
State ex rel. Roden v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2020-Ohio-408 — Cited for the proposition that substantial compliance does not satisfy R.C. 2969.25(C). The Court clarified that Roden did not decide what “certified” means; rather, Roden confirms the uncompromising posture toward compliance.
Grinnell v. Cool, 2023-Ohio-3672 — Directly on point: a six-month account statement is insufficient without certification by the institutional cashier. The Court used Grinnell to reject Martin’s claim that a printed account statement itself constitutes certification.
State ex rel. Parker Bey v. Bureau of Sentence Computation, 2022-Ohio-236 — In Parker Bey, the Court held that compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) (affidavit of prior actions) is not an affirmative defense but part of the act of commencing an action. In Martin, the Court extended that reasoning to R.C. 2969.25(C), holding that noncompliance with (C) is likewise not an affirmative defense, so respondents may raise it in a motion for summary judgment without prior pleading.
State ex rel. Whittaker v. Lucas Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 2021-Ohio-1241 — Provides the standard of review: de novo review of summary judgment in original actions. The Court applied this standard here.
Morgan v. Eads, 2004-Ohio-6110 and State ex rel. Harris v. Turner, 2020-Ohio-2901 — Both establish record-based appellate constraints: reviewing courts are generally limited to the record before the lower court and may not consider new materials on appeal. This justified the Court’s refusal to consider Martin’s supplemental documents filed with his Supreme Court brief.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in three steps:

Textual requirement of certification.
R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) expressly requires that the six-month account statement be “certified by the institutional cashier.” The Court looked to the statute’s plain language and found Martin’s printed account statement did not “bear any indication that it [was] certified or approved by the institutional cashier.” In line with Grinnell, the Court rejected the contention that the account statement is self-certifying or that the statute can be satisfied without some formal indication of cashier certification.
Strict compliance, not substantial compliance.
Reaffirming Townsend and Roden, the Court emphasized that strict compliance is mandatory. It declined to recognize any “accepted practice” of accepting noncertified statements. The requirement is not a mere technicality; it is a statutory precondition to the fee-waiver mechanism.
Noncompliance is not an affirmative defense.
Addressing waiver, the Court analogized to Parker Bey’s holding under R.C. 2969.25(A): compliance with inmate-filing prerequisites is “an essential component of commencing the action,” not a defense that presupposes a prima facie case. By the same logic, noncompliance with (C) is not an affirmative defense. Thus, respondents may raise the defect via motion for summary judgment even if not asserted in a responsive pleading.

Applying these principles, the Court affirmed summary judgment for the respondent judge, without reaching the merits of the claimed delay in ruling on the postconviction petition (including any Sup.R. 40(A) timeliness arguments), because the statutory filing prerequisite was not met.

Impact and Forward-Looking Implications

This decision reinforces and clarifies Ohio’s rigorous approach to inmate filing prerequisites in civil actions against public officials, particularly extraordinary writs such as mandamus, procedendo, and prohibition. Key practical impacts include:

Heightened procedural gatekeeping. Courts of appeals (and the Supreme Court) will continue to summarily dispose of inmate filings when fee-waiver paperwork lacks institutional-cashier certification. Attempted “substantial compliance” will not suffice.
No waiver through silence. Respondents need not plead noncompliance as an affirmative defense. They may raise it in dispositive motions, and courts may enforce the statute sua sponte, consistent with the characterization of R.C. 2969.25 compliance as an essential filing component.
Record discipline on appeal. Inmates cannot rehabilitate a defective record on appeal by submitting new materials. Supplemental documents not presented below will be disregarded.
Uniformity in “certification” practice. The opinion resists informal practices of accepting printed or unsigned statements and will drive institutions and litigants toward consistent use of cashier-authenticated statements (e.g., by signature, stamp, or other official indication).
Substantive claims remain unreachable without compliance. Even where inmates allege genuine delay in trial courts’ rulings (e.g., under Sup.R. 40(A)’s 120-day guideline), noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(C) will prevent merits review. Counsel and inmate litigants must prioritize compliance to preserve access to judicial review.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Writ of procedendo: An extraordinary writ ordering a lower court to proceed to judgment when it has a duty to act and has refused or unduly delayed action. It does not direct a specific outcome, only that the court decide.
R.C. 2969.25(A) (Affidavit of prior civil actions): Requires inmates commencing civil actions against government actors to file an affidavit listing all prior civil actions or appeals and specific details. Compliance is a prerequisite to commencing the action.
R.C. 2969.25(C) (Fee-waiver filings): Requires an inmate seeking waiver of prepayment of filing fees to submit an affidavit of indigency with an institutional account statement showing balances for each of the preceding six months, certified by the institutional cashier.
Certification by institutional cashier: An authentication by the designated prison official (cashier) that the account statement is accurate; it must appear on the document (e.g., signature, stamp, or equivalent official indication).
Strict vs. substantial compliance: Strict compliance means exact adherence to statutory requirements; substantial compliance (close enough) is insufficient under R.C. 2969.25.
Affirmative defense: A defense that admits the plaintiff’s prima facie case but asserts new facts or legal theories to avoid liability. The Court explains that R.C. 2969.25 compliance is not an affirmative defense; it is part of commencing the action.
De novo review: A standard of review where the appellate court gives no deference to the lower court’s legal conclusions. Applied here to the grant of summary judgment.
Record on appeal principle: Appellate courts generally may review only materials that were before the lower court; new documents cannot be added on appeal to cure deficiencies.

Practical Guidance and Checklist

For inmates and counsel filing civil actions (including extraordinary writs) against a government entity or employee in an Ohio court of appeals:

At the time you file your petition or complaint:
- Include the R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit of prior civil actions with all required details.
- If seeking waiver of prepayment of filing fees, include:
  - A sworn affidavit of indigency, and
  - A six-month institutional account statement showing balances for each of the preceding six months, certified by the institutional cashier (look for a signature, stamp, seal, or other official indication).
Do not assume a printed account ledger alone will suffice. The document must clearly show cashier certification.
If you omit certification, be aware the defect is typically fatal to the action and cannot be cured by submitting new documents on appeal.
If responding to a motion for summary judgment, you may not rely on materials not in the record below; consider re-filing with proper compliance if time and circumstances allow.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Martin v. McCormick cements two complementary principles in Ohio inmate litigation: (1) strict compliance with R.C. 2969.25(C) is mandatory and requires a six-month account statement certified by the institutional cashier, and (2) noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(C) is not an affirmative defense but a threshold defect in commencing the action. The Court’s analysis—grounded in textual fidelity, prior strict-compliance precedents, and appellate record discipline—reinforces that procedural prerequisites are strictly enforced and cannot be relaxed through informal practice or post hoc supplementation. For practitioners and pro se inmates alike, the decision functions as a clear procedural roadmap: get the paperwork right at the outset, or the courthouse door will not open to your substantive claims.