State ex rel. Pointer v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 2022-0307

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the CourtPer Curiam.
Citation2022 Ohio 3261
PartiesThe State ex rel. Pointer, Appellant, v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, Appellee.
Docket Number2022-0307
Decision Date21 September 2022

2022-Ohio-3261

The State ex rel. Pointer, Appellant,
v.

Ohio Adult Parole Authority, Appellee.

No. 2022-0307

Supreme Court of Ohio

September 21, 2022


Submitted August 2, 2022

Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 21AP-412, 2022-Ohio-358.

Dennis Pointer, pro se.

Dave Yost, Attorney General, and George Horváth, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Dennis Pointer, appeals the Tenth District Court of Appeals' dismissal of his mandamus complaint for failure to satisfy the affidavit requirement of R.C. 2969.25(A). We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

{¶ 2} Pointer is incarcerated for a 1993 murder conviction. According to Pointer, at a parole hearing in January 2020, members of the parole board

1

questioned him about rules infractions that had been used as bases to deny him parole in previous hearings. Pointer further alleges that the parole board did not provide him with all the "reports, documents, or other written information" it relied on in its decision to deny him parole. Pointer therefore argues that he was deprived of his opportunity to inform the parole board of inaccuracies contained in these reports and documents and was thereby denied meaningful consideration for parole.

{¶ 3} Pointer commenced this action in the court of appeals in August 2021, seeking a writ of mandamus ordering appellee, Ohio Adult Parole Authority ("APA"), to remove all false, incorrect, and misleading information from his file, order a new parole hearing, and allow him to review his file at the new hearing. Attached to the complaint was Pointer's affidavit required by R.C. 2969.25(A), purporting to contain a list "of all cases [Pointer] filed in the last five years." The list reads as follows:

(1) Pointer v. Jane Doe Smith et al,
Case No. 20APE-12-555
(2) Pointer v. Jane Doe Smith et al.,
Case No. 20CV003737
(3) Pointer v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. And Corr.
2019-010-59AD.

APA moved to dismiss Pointer's complaint for noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(A), arguing that his affidavit of prior actions failed to contain all the information required by the statute and was therefore deficient. Pointer opposed APA's motion to dismiss. He also filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint to include a more detailed R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit.

{¶ 4} The court of appeals referred the case to a magistrate, who recommended granting APA's motion to dismiss. The magistrate found that

2

Pointer's affidavit of prior actions was fatally deficient because it failed to contain a brief description of the nature of the actions listed, failed to include the court in which each action was brought, and failed to list the name of each...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT