Strict, Contemporaneous Compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) Is Required; Noncompliance Requires Dismissal Without Prejudice and Cannot Be Cured by Later Amendment

Introduction

In State ex rel. Mason v. Supervisor of Education, Warren Correctional Institution, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-4803, the Supreme Court of Ohio reaffirmed and sharpened two core principles governing inmate civil filings under R.C. 2969.25(A): first, that the affidavit of prior civil actions must strictly comply with the statute at the moment the action is commenced (i.e., when the original complaint is filed) and cannot be cured by amendment; and second, that dismissals for failure to satisfy the statute’s affidavit requirements are not on the merits and must therefore be without prejudice. The decision underscores the procedural rigor imposed by Ohio’s inmate-litigation statute while preserving the opportunity to refile properly after a non-merits dismissal.

The case arises from a public-records mandamus action filed by David Mason, an inmate, against the Supervisor of Education at Warren Correctional Institution (WCI). The Twelfth District Court of Appeals dismissed Mason’s action with prejudice on the ground that his R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit was deficient and deemed his amended complaint ineffective for lack of a certificate of service. The Supreme Court agreed that dismissal was warranted due to the original affidavit’s noncompliance but held the dismissal must be without prejudice, reversing in part and remanding.

Case Background and Key Issues

David Mason, incarcerated at North Central Correctional Complex, submitted a public-records request to WCI. After receiving no response, he filed a mandamus complaint in the Twelfth District Court of Appeals to compel production of the records. As an inmate suing a government entity, Mason was required by R.C. 2969.25(A) to file, at the time he commenced the action, an affidavit describing each civil action or appeal he had filed within the prior five years, “including the court in which each action or appeal was filed.” Mason provided an affidavit listing three cases but, as to the second, stated no case number and failed to identify the court where it was filed.

WCI moved to dismiss for noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(A). Mason then filed an amended complaint with a corrected affidavit, but he did not include a certificate of service. The Twelfth District dismissed with prejudice, deeming the original affidavit deficient (based on the omitted case number) and the amended filing ineffective due to the absent certificate of service.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed:

Whether the initial R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit strictly complied with the statute at the time the action was commenced;
Whether a later-filed amended complaint and affidavit could cure a defect in the original affidavit;
Whether the dismissal should be with prejudice or without prejudice;
Incidental arguments concerning whether the second case needed to be listed and whether material outside the record could be considered on appeal.

Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous per curiam opinion, held:

The affidavit Mason filed with his original complaint did not strictly comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) because it failed to specify “the court in which” one of the prior actions had been filed. Strict, not substantial, compliance is required. Consequently, dismissal was proper.
The defect could not be cured by an amended complaint and affidavit filed after the action was commenced. The statute requires a compliant affidavit when the action is commenced—i.e., with the original complaint—not through later amendment.
However, dismissal for noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is not a dismissal on the merits. Therefore, the court of appeals erred in dismissing with prejudice. The correct disposition is dismissal without prejudice.

The Court reversed the “with prejudice” aspect of the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded with instructions to enter a dismissal without prejudice.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

State ex rel. Norris v. Giavasis (2003-Ohio-6609), quoting State ex rel. White v. Bechtel (2003-Ohio-2262): The Court reiterated that the requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory. Failure to comply subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal. These cases establish the baseline: courts must enforce the statute’s procedural prerequisites strictly.
State ex rel. Brantley v. Ghee (1997-Ohio-116): The Court relied on Brantley to reject Mason’s attempt to supplement the record on appeal with a mailing slip to show the timing of another case. A reviewing court cannot add matter to the record and decide based on new material. This fortified the conclusion that the record did not support Mason’s claim that the disputed case fell outside the affidavit’s temporal scope.
State ex rel. Jackson v. Calabrese (2015-Ohio-2918): The Court analogized to Jackson, which refused post-filing attempts to add the inmate-account balance statement required by R.C. 2969.25(C). The principle drawn is general: compliance with R.C. 2969.25 must exist at commencement; later amendments do not cure noncompliance.
State ex rel. Swanson v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (2019-Ohio-1271): This case confirms that R.C. 2969.25 compliance demands strict, not substantial, compliance. It rejected the notion that “close enough” suffices for statutory prerequisites in inmate filings.
State ex rel. Watkins v. Andrews (2015-Ohio-1100) and Fletcher v. Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland (2008-Ohio-5379): These decisions establish that dismissal for failure to meet R.C. 2969.25 is not on the merits and that non-merits dismissals must be without prejudice. They anchor the Supreme Court’s correction of the court of appeals’ “with prejudice” disposition.
State ex rel. Walker v. Bolin (2024-Ohio-5126): The Court recently reiterated that non-merits dismissals are without prejudice, citing Watkins and the savings statute, R.C. 2305.19(A). Walker’s recency underscores the Court’s consistent application of this remedial rule.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in three steps:

Noncompliance at Commencement: R.C. 2969.25(A) “requires an affidavit providing certain specified details about all civil actions and appeals that [the inmate] filed in the previous five years, including the court in which each action or appeal was filed,” and that affidavit must be filed “when [the inmate] commences a civil action.” Mason’s original affidavit indisputably omitted the court for one listed case. Because strict compliance is required, the omission rendered the affidavit deficient at the only time that matters—when the action was commenced with the original complaint.
No Post-Filing Cure by Amendment: The Court held that a compliant affidavit cannot be supplied later via amendment to save a case already commenced without the required affidavit details. Drawing on Jackson (R.C. 2969.25(C)) and the overarching requirement of contemporaneous compliance, the Court rejected the notion that an amended complaint with an amended affidavit could cure the original filing defect. The statutory condition precedent attaches at filing; a later cure is too late.
Disposition Must Be Without Prejudice: Although dismissal is mandatory for noncompliance, such a dismissal is not on the merits. Therefore, consistent with Watkins, Fletcher, and Walker, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. The Court corrected the court of appeals’ error in dismissing with prejudice and remanded to enter a without-prejudice dismissal.

The Court also addressed and rejected Mason’s factual argument that he was not required to list the disputed case because it had not yet been filed at the time of the affidavit. Because appellate courts cannot consider new material outside the record, and because the proffered mailing slip did not demonstrate what was mailed or whether it was the operative pleading, the record did not support Mason’s contention.

Finally, while the court of appeals had also faulted Mason’s amended complaint for lacking a certificate of service under Civ.R. 5, the Supreme Court did not need to reach that issue. The case was properly dismissed based on noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) at commencement, rendering any defect in the amended filing immaterial to the disposition.

Impact and Practical Implications

The decision has several immediate and practical effects for inmate litigation and for courts managing those dockets:

Reaffirmed strict timing and content requirements: Inmates must file a fully compliant R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit with the original complaint. The affidavit must include, for every covered action filed in the previous five years, the court in which it was filed (among other statutory particulars). Omission of any required element at filing triggers dismissal.
No second chances within the same case: Parties cannot cure R.C. 2969.25(A) defects by amendment. This removes any doubt about whether a corrected affidavit attached to an amended complaint can save an action: it cannot.
Uniform remedial rule—without prejudice: The Court ensures consistent statewide practice: dismissals for 2969.25(A) noncompliance are not on the merits and must be without prejudice. This preserves the possibility of refiling with a compliant affidavit, subject to other procedural constraints (e.g., laches or any applicable limitations or savings statutes).
Appellate record integrity: Litigants cannot supplement the record on appeal with new materials to prove compliance or excuse noncompliance. All necessary proof must be in the record created in the court below.
Public-records mandamus remains merits-untouched: The opinion does not resolve any substantive public-records issues. It is a procedural decision that may delay, but does not foreclose, consideration of public-records claims if properly refiled.

For courts of appeals, Mason provides clear guidance: when R.C. 2969.25(A) is not strictly met at the time of filing, dismissal is mandatory, but it must be without prejudice. Courts need not, and often should not, reach secondary procedural disputes (like service certificates on amendments) where the primary defect is dispositive.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mandamus: An extraordinary writ used to compel a government official or entity to perform a clear legal duty. In the public-records context, mandamus is a statutory mechanism to compel production of records when a public office fails to comply.
R.C. 2969.25(A) Affidavit: Ohio law requires inmates who sue government entities or employees to include, at filing, an affidavit listing each civil action or appeal the inmate has filed in the previous five years, with specified details, including the court where each was filed. The statute is designed to give courts a complete picture of an inmate’s litigation history at the outset.
Strict vs. Substantial Compliance: Strict compliance means following the statute exactly. Substantial compliance permits minor deviations so long as the statute’s purpose is met. Here, the Supreme Court requires strict compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A).
Commencement of Action: For these purposes, an action is “commenced” when the original complaint is filed. The required affidavit must be compliant at that moment; later corrections do not count.
With Prejudice vs. Without Prejudice: A dismissal “with prejudice” ends the case on the merits and bars refiling. A dismissal “without prejudice” is not on the merits and permits refiling, subject to other procedural rules.
Record on Appeal: Appellate courts decide cases based on the record from the lower court. Litigants generally cannot add new evidence at the appellate stage.

Practice Pointers

Build the affidavit before filing: Inmates (and assisting counsel, if any) should prepare the R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit first. Verify for each action within the past five years: case name, case number (if assigned), the court, the nature of the case, and the outcome/status. If a case has been filed but no number assigned yet, specify the court and filing date and note that the number is pending; omitting the court violates the statute.
Err on the side of inclusion: If there is uncertainty whether a case was “filed” by the affidavit date, include it with the best available detail and clarify the status. The risk of over-inclusion is far lower than the risk of omitting a required entry.
Do not rely on amendments to cure: If a compliant affidavit does not accompany the original complaint, anticipate dismissal. Prepare to refile with a compliant affidavit instead of attempting to fix the defect within the same case.
Protect the appellate record: Ensure all documents needed to support any claim of compliance are filed in the trial court. Do not expect to add proof on appeal.
Disposition expectations: When facing dismissal for R.C. 2969.25 noncompliance, request a dismissal without prejudice. Mason confirms that is the correct remedy.

Noteworthy Procedural Footnote

The opinion consistently identifies the case as arising from the Twelfth District Court of Appeals (Warren County), though one paragraph references “5th Dist.” by docket style when citing the intermediate decision. Given the case number (CA2024-11-082) and the broader context, that appears to be a typographical slip; the Supreme Court’s analysis and holding are unaffected.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Mason reinforces two bedrock rules in Ohio inmate litigation. First, strict and contemporaneous compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is mandatory: the inmate’s affidavit of prior civil actions must be fully compliant at the time the action is commenced, and later amendments cannot cure defects. Second, dismissals for such noncompliance are not on the merits and must be without prejudice. Together, these principles balance the statute’s gatekeeping function with fairness: while noncompliant cases cannot proceed, inmates retain the opportunity to refile properly. For practitioners and self-represented inmates alike, Mason offers a clear procedural roadmap—get the affidavit right at the start, and if not, expect dismissal without prejudice and prepare to refile correctly.

Citation

State ex rel. Mason v. Supervisor of Education, Warren Corr. Inst., Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-4803 (Supreme Court of Ohio, Oct. 23, 2025). Per curiam; all participating justices concurred.