{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the claim of appellant, inmate Ricardo Leon, for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, to resentence him. The court of appeals concluded, based on a reasonable interpretation of its own appellate rule, Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1), that Leon failed to comply with its requirement to file an affidavit “specifying the details of the claim” when he merely stated in his affidavit that his complaint was true and correct to the best of his knowledge, recollection, and belief. But cf. Wellington v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 117 Ohio St.3d 143, 2008-Ohio-554, 882 N.E.2d 420, ¶ 16-19 (court construed comparable requirement in S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B) not to require repetition of statements in complaint in supporting affidavit). Notwithstanding Leon’s claims to the contrary, the mere fact that he is a pro se litigant does not entitle him to ignore the requirements of the local appellate rule. “ ‘[P]ro se litigants * * * are held to the same standard as litigants who are represented by counsel.’ ” State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d 352, 2003-Ohio-6448, 800 N.E.2d 25, ¶ 10, quoting Sabouri v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs. (2001), 145 Ohio App.3d 651, 654, 763 N.E.2d 1238.

{¶ 2} By so holding, we need not address the merits of the court of appeals’ other reasons for denying the writs.

Judgment affirmed.