R.C. 2969.25(A)(2) Strict-Compliance Rule: Inmates Must List Case Numbers for Both Prior Civil Actions and Appeals (“Or” Is Inclusive)

I. Introduction

In State ex rel. Stokes v. Combs, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-1209, the Supreme Court of Ohio (per curiam) affirmed the Tenth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of an inmate’s mandamus action seeking records under Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43.

The relator, Patrick O. Stokes, is an inmate who brought a public-records mandamus action against A. Combs, an employee of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s Bureau of Sentence Computation. Stokes sought production of an “electronic kite” (an internal inmate-to-staff communication) and the response to it. The dispositive issue was not public-records law on the merits, but whether Stokes complied with the inmate-litigation affidavit requirements in R.C. 2969.25(A).

The key statutory question was interpretive: under R.C. 2969.25(A)(2), does an inmate’s affidavit have to provide case numbers for appeals as well as for the underlying civil actions when both were filed within the prior five years? Stokes argued that the statute’s use of “or” allowed him to provide case numbers for one or the other; the courts held otherwise.

II. Summary of the Opinion

The court held that R.C. 2969.25(A) demands strict compliance. Because Stokes’s affidavit identified three prior appeals filed within the preceding five years but did not include their case numbers, it failed to strictly comply with R.C. 2969.25(A)(2). The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).

The court also rejected Stokes’s due-process/vagueness argument and his claim that the Tenth District’s reasoning actually supported his reading of “or.” The opinion reiterates that to avoid dismissal, an inmate must identify and describe all relevant prior civil actions and appeals of civil actions from the prior five years, including required details such as case numbers.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

  • State ex rel. Martin v. Greene, 2019-Ohio-1827: Cited for the definition of a “kite” (a communication between an inmate and prison staff). While not outcome-determinative, it frames the factual backdrop of the records request.
  • State ex rel. Robinson v. Page, 2025-Ohio-623: Supplies the standard of review—dismissals under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) are reviewed de novo. This permits the Supreme Court to independently assess statutory compliance from the face of the complaint and attachments.
  • State ex rel. Gordon v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2025-Ohio-2927: Provides the mandamus-dismissal framework under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) (“beyond doubt” no set of facts entitles relief) and confirms the court may consider documents attached to or incorporated into the complaint—critical because the R.C. 2969.25 affidavit is typically filed with the complaint and is central to dismissal.
  • State ex rel. Roush v. Hickson, 2023-Ohio-1696: Reinforces that inmates bringing civil actions/appeals against government entities or employees must file the statutory affidavit describing prior civil actions and appeals from the prior five years.
  • Robinson v. Fender, 2020-Ohio-458 and State ex rel. Pointer v. Adult Parole Auth., 2022-Ohio-3261: These authorities anchor the doctrine that R.C. 2969.25(A) requires strict compliance and that noncompliance warrants dismissal. They provide the doctrinal footing for treating technical defects (like missing case numbers) as fatal.
  • State ex rel. Harris v. Trelka, 2025-Ohio-4453: The controlling interpretive precedent. Harris rejected the same “or means either/or” argument and held that if an inmate filed an appeal within the relevant five-year window, the inmate must include it in the affidavit even if the underlying civil action is disclosed. Stokes is presented as an application of Harris to missing case numbers for appeals.
  • Westerfield v. Bracy, 2023-Ohio-499: Quoted (via Harris) for the “must attach an affidavit listing all federal and state civil actions and appeals of civil actions” formulation. It supports reading “or” in a way that does not reduce disclosure obligations.
  • State ex rel. Mason v. Supervisor of Edn., Warren Corr. Inst., 2025-Ohio-4803: Reinforces the strict-compliance rule and explicitly contrasts strict compliance with “substantial compliance,” foreclosing arguments that partial identifying information can suffice.
  • Prior litigation identified in Stokes’s affidavit—Stokes v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-19-915804, 2020 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 5330 (Feb. 7, 2020); State ex rel. Stokes v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2023-Ohio-468 (10th Dist.); and 2023-Ohio-4201: These are not used as “precedents” but illustrate the factual noncompliance: Stokes referenced appeals in these matters yet omitted their case numbers—the specific defect triggering dismissal.

B. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds in three steps:

  1. The affidavit is mandatory and content-specific. Under R.C. 2969.25(A), an inmate commencing a civil action or appeal against a government entity/employee must file an affidavit describing each civil action or appeal filed in the previous five years. Subsection (A)(2) requires: “The case name, case number, and the court in which the civil action or appeal was brought.”
  2. “Or” does not create an election between disclosing actions vs. appeals. Stokes’s central textual argument was that “civil action or appeal” means he could disclose one or the other. The court rejects that reading by relying on State ex rel. Harris v. Trelka, which treats the statute as requiring disclosure of all qualifying civil actions and all qualifying appeals. On that view, “or” functions to capture both categories—not to permit choosing between them.
  3. Strict compliance makes missing case numbers fatal. Stokes admitted he omitted case numbers for three appeals that he affirmatively stated were filed within the prior five years. Because the statute demands the case number for each listed action/appeal, and because Ohio precedent demands strict compliance, the omission requires dismissal at the pleading stage.

The court also disposes of Stokes’s due-process/vagueness theory by pointing out that the Tenth District clearly held “or” is inclusive in this context, and the Supreme Court’s own caselaw (especially Harris) supplies clear notice of what is required.

C. Impact

State ex rel. Stokes v. Combs strengthens and operationalizes a firm procedural gatekeeping rule for inmate litigation:

  • For inmates: any affidavit under R.C. 2969.25(A) must be treated as a checklist item with no tolerance for missing fields. If an inmate mentions an appeal (or any appeal exists within the five-year period), the affidavit must include the appeal’s case name, case number, and court, along with other required information. Partial identification (e.g., dates or outcomes without case numbers) is inadequate.
  • For courts of appeals: the decision supports early dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) when the affidavit is facially deficient, reducing the need to reach substantive claims (including public-records mandamus merits).
  • For public-records mandamus practice involving inmates: the case illustrates that even potentially meritorious R.C. 149.43 claims may never be reached if R.C. 2969.25(A) is not meticulously satisfied.

Doctrinally, Stokes further stabilizes Harris by reiterating that “civil action or appeal” should be read to ensure disclosure of both categories where applicable, and by reaffirming strict compliance as the governing enforcement mechanism.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

Mandamus
A court order compelling a public official to perform a clear legal duty. Here, Stokes sought an order requiring production of requested records.
Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43)
Ohio’s statute entitling persons to access qualifying public records, subject to exceptions. Stokes used it to request copies of a kite and its response.
Kite
An inmate-to-staff communication within a correctional institution (often electronic). The requested “electronic kite” is the document Stokes wanted produced.
R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit
A mandatory filing for inmates suing government entities/employees. It must list every civil action and every appeal of a civil action filed in the prior five years, with specified identifying details.
Strict compliance vs. substantial compliance
“Strict compliance” means every required statutory element must be satisfied exactly; “substantial compliance” would tolerate minor defects. This line of cases requires strict compliance, so missing case numbers—even if other details are present—results in dismissal.
Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal; de novo review
A case can be dismissed if the complaint (and documents properly considered with it) shows the plaintiff cannot win as a matter of law. “De novo” means the reviewing court gives no deference and decides the legal question anew.
Inclusive vs. exclusive “or”
Exclusive “or” means “one or the other, but not both.” Inclusive “or” means “one or the other, or both.” The court treated “or” in R.C. 2969.25(A)(2) as inclusive, so both prior civil actions and prior appeals must be properly disclosed when they exist.
Void for vagueness
A due-process doctrine invalidating rules that fail to give fair notice or invite arbitrary enforcement. The court found no such problem because the requirements are clear (and clarified by precedent).

V. Conclusion

State ex rel. Stokes v. Combs confirms a strict procedural rule with decisive consequences: to avoid dismissal under R.C. 2969.25(A)(2), an inmate must disclose all qualifying prior civil actions and qualifying appeals filed in the prior five years, including each matter’s case number. The decision, following State ex rel. Harris v. Trelka, treats “or” as inclusive and reinforces that even small omissions in the affidavit are fatal—often preventing courts from reaching the underlying merits of public-records or other claims.