[Cite as Walter v. State, 2013-Ohio-4198.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100091

TERRANCE WALTER RELATOR vs. STATE OF OHIO RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Procedendo Motion No. 467071 Order No. 467936 RELEASE DATE: September 25, 2013 -i-

FOR RELATOR Terrance Walter Inmate #531-346 Trumbull Correctional Institution P.O. Box 901 Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor 9th Floor, Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.: {¶1} Terrance Walter has filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo. Walter seeks an order from this court that would require the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to render a ruling with regard to a “motion to remove court costs/fines” filed in State v. Walter, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-485250. For the following reasons, we decline to issue a writ of procedendo.

{¶2} Initially, we find that Walter has failed to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a), which mandates that a complaint for a writ of procedendo must be supported by a sworn affidavit that specifies the details of his claim for relief. State ex rel. Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92826, 2009-Ohio-1612; State ex rel. Santos v. McDonnell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90659, 2008-Ohio-214; Turner v. Russo, 8th Dist Cuyahoga No. 87852, 2006-Ohio-4490; Barry v. Galvin, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 85990, 2005-Ohio-2324.

{¶3} Walter has also failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A), which requires the attachment of an affidavit to the complaint for a writ of procedendo that describes each civil action or appeal filed within the previous five years in any state or federal court.

State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 1998-Ohio-218, 696 N.E.2d 594; State ex rel. Alford v. Winters, 80 Ohio St.3d 285, 1997-Ohio-117, 685 N.E.2d 1242.

{¶4} In addition, Walter has failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), which requires that an inmate, who files a complaint against a government entity or government employee, must support the complaint with a statement that: 1) sets forth the balance in the inmate’s account for the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier; and 2) a statement that sets forth all other cash and items of value as owned by the inmate.

The failure of Walter to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) warrants dismissal of his complaint for a writ of procedendo. Martin v. Woods, 121 Ohio St.3d 609, 2009-Ohio-1928, 906 N.E.2d 1113; State ex rel. Marshall v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 99114, 2013-Ohio-705; Gaston v. Reid, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98192, 2012-Ohio-2937.

{¶5} Finally, Walter’s request for a writ of procedendo is moot. A review of the docket, in State v. Walter, Cuyahoga C.P. Case No. CR-485250, demonstrates that the trial court denied the motion to remove court costs and fines on July 26, 2013. State ex rel.

Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 1996-Ohio-117, 658 N.E.2d 723; State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman, 6 Ohio St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163 (1983).

{¶6} Accordingly, we decline to issue a writ of mandamus and grant the trial court’s motion for summary judgment. Costs to trial court. Costs waived. The court directs the clerk of court to serve all parties with notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).

{¶7} Complaint denied. ______________________________________ PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE MELODY J. STEWART, A.J., and EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR