Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 16, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State ex rel. Coleman v. Gillece-Black

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 872

• Docket Number: 26CA000048

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Syllabus

Habeas Corpus, R.C. 2969.25(C), statement of prisoner account, six months immediately preceding

Combined Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Coleman v. Gillece-Black, 2026-Ohio-872.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF LORAIN )

STATE EX REL. LERON COLEMAN C.A. No. 26CA000048

Petitioner

v.

JENNIFER GILLECE-BLACK,
WARDEN ORIGINAL ACTION IN HABEAS
CORPUS
Respondent

Dated: March 16, 2026

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} Petitioner, LeRon Coleman, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petition

alleges that Mr. Coleman is being held unlawfully restrained by Respondent, Warden Black, in the

Lorain Correctional Institution. Because Mr. Coleman failed to comply with the mandatory

requirements of R.C. 2969.25, this Court must dismiss this case.

{¶2} R.C. 2969.25 sets forth specific filing requirements for inmates who file a civil

action against a government employee. Warden Black is a government employee, and Mr.

Coleman, incarcerated in the Lorain Correctional Institution, is an inmate. R.C. 2969.21(C) and

(D). A case must be dismissed if an inmate fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of

R.C. 2969.25 in the commencement of the action. State ex rel. Graham v. Findlay Mun. Court,

2005-Ohio-3671, ¶ 6.
2

{¶3} Mr. Coleman was required to pay the cost deposit, as required by this Court’s Local

Rules, or comply with R.C. 2969.25(C). Mr. Coleman did not pay the cost deposit when he filed

his petition. He did move to waive prepayment of the cost deposit. That motion, however, failed

to comply with the requirement that Mr. Coleman file a statement of his prisoner trust account that

sets forth the balance in his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as certified by

the institutional cashier. Mr. Coleman filed a statement that included the balance of his account

for six months, but it was not the six months immediately preceding the filing of his petition..

{¶4} The Supreme Court’s decisions make clear that R.C. 2969.25(C) does not permit

substantial compliance. See, e.g., State ex rel. Roden v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2020-Ohio-

408, ¶ 8. Failure to comply with these requirements, including attaching a statement that does not

cover the six months immediately preceding the filing of the action, warrants dismissal. Russell

v. Duffey, 2015-Ohio-1358, ¶ 11-12.

{¶5} In this case, Mr. Coleman attached three separate documents in an attempt to

comply with R.C. 2969.25(C). The first, certified by the institutional cashier, set forth the balance

of his account as of December 26, 2025. The second document, titled “FFF – Court Certification”,

also certified by the institutional cashier, set forth the starting balance of his account as of June 27,

2025, and the ending balance as of December 26, 2025. The final document, titled “Inmate

Demand Statement”, covered the dates from June 1, 2025, through December 27, 2025. This

document was not certified by the institutional cashier.

{¶6} Mr. Coleman’s petition was filed on March 2, 2026. Mr. Coleman was required by

R.C. 2969.25(C) to include a statement of his inmate trust account that set forth the balance for the

six months immediately preceding March 2026. The three documents Mr. Coleman filed set forth

the balance of his inmate trust account as of December 2025, which does not cover the six months
3

immediately preceding the filing of this action, as certified by the institutional cashier. Mr.

Coleman failed to comply with this mandatory requirement and, therefore, this Court must dismiss

this action. Id.

{¶7} Because Mr. Coleman did not comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C.

2969.25, this case is dismissed. Costs are taxed to Mr. Coleman. The clerk of courts is hereby

directed to serve upon all parties not in default notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon

the journal. See Civ.R. 58.

JILL FLAGG LANZINGER
FOR THE COURT

SUTTON, J.
STEVENSON, J.
CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

LERON COLEMAN, Pro Se, Petitioner.