McIntyre, an inmate at Mansfield Correctional Institution, filed a habeas corpus petition in June 2025 seeking immediate release on grounds that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to impose his sentence. As required by Ohio Revised Code Section 2969.25(A), McIntyre attached an affidavit listing each civil action he had filed in the previous five years. However, for the first case listed—'State ex rel. McIntyre v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, 2021-Ohio-922, action dismissed by trial court [and] no appeal taken'—McIntyre failed to include a brief description of the nature of the case or identify the court in which it was brought.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals sua sponte dismissed McIntyre's petition for noncompliance with the affidavit requirements. The court held that McIntyre's petition was 'fatally flawed' because his disclosure omitted information required by R.C. 2969.25(A)(1) and (2). As the Supreme Court noted, 'Compliance with the statute is mandatory, and strict compliance is required,' citing established precedent that '[a]n inmate's failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) warrants dismissal of a habeas petition.'
The court delivered its strongest language when rejecting McIntyre's defense, writing: 'By listing the case in his affidavit, McIntyre invited the Fifth District's error, if any, in considering whether the affidavit failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A)(1) and (2) by omitting the required information.' The court explained that 'Under the invited-error doctrine, a party will not be permitted to take advantage of an error which he himself invited or induced the [lower] court to make.'
McIntyre had argued on appeal that he wasn't required to disclose the case in the first place because although the Tenth District decided it in 2021, he originally filed it in 2019—more than five years before commencing his 2025 habeas action. The statute requires disclosure only of cases 'filed in the previous five years.' McIntyre contended this timing meant his affidavit actually complied with the statute despite the missing details.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument entirely, finding that McIntyre's voluntary inclusion of the case doomed his position. 'Even if McIntyre was not required to include State ex rel. McIntyre v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. in his affidavit of prior civil actions, he did so,' the court wrote. The justices emphasized that once McIntyre chose to list the case, he became subject to the statute's strict disclosure requirements regardless of whether inclusion was originally mandatory.
The ruling reinforces Ohio courts' rigid enforcement of prisoner litigation requirements. Previous cases have established that affidavits omitting required details are 'fatally deficient,' with courts dismissing actions when inmates fail to 'identify the parties to the civil actions disclosed, the courts in which those cases were filed, and the outcome of each case.' The Supreme Court's application of invited error doctrine to this context appears to be a novel extension, potentially making it even harder for inmates to challenge procedural dismissals.
The case underscores the high stakes of Ohio's prisoner litigation statute, which was designed to curb frivolous lawsuits but creates procedural minefields for pro se inmates. McIntyre's case shows how even technical compliance questions—whether a case filed more than five years ago but decided within five years must be disclosed—can become irrelevant if inmates voluntarily provide information that fails to meet statutory standards.