COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT  
                          COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                               NO. 71174
STATE OF OHIO EX REL.           :
GERALD O. STROTHERS, JR.        :           ORIGINAL ACTION  
                                :  
                                :            JOURNAL ENTRY
                 Relator        :
                                :                  AND
         vs.                    :
                                :                OPINION
JUDGE PETER J. SIKORA,          :
CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON :
PLEAS, JUVENILE DIVISION        :
                                :
                 Respondent     :
                                :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT 
OF DECISION:                    APRIL 24, 1997 
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:        WRIT OF MANDAMUS
JUDGMENT:                       WRIT DISMISSED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:                                              
APPEARANCES:
For Relator:                    GERALD O. STROTHERS, JR. Pro Se
                                Box 35182
                                Cleveland, Ohio  44135
For Respondent:                 STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES
                                Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                                CAROL SHOCKLEY
                                Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
                                Courts Tower - Eighth Floor
                                1200 Ontario Street
                                Cleveland, Ohio  44113
                                 - 2 -
O'DONNELL, J.:
     On August  28, 1996,  Gerald O.  Strothers filed  a writ  of
mandamus against the Administrative Judge  of the Cuyahoga County
Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Judge Peter J.  Sikora,
seeking access to public records pursuant to R.C. 149.43  because
Sikora, in a  letter dated  August 23, 1996,  denied any  further
requests by Strothers to review or copy Juvenile Court records. 
     Strothers  attached  to the  writ  a purported  affidavit of
indigency in order to have costs of the action waived pursuant to
Local Appellate Rule 8(A).  On December 17, 1996, our court,  sua
sponte, found the  relator's affidavit of  indigency insufficient
and ordered him to deposit the  sum of $100.00 with the clerk  of
courts or otherwise have the action dismissed. 
     Thereafter,  on  January  15, 1997,  we  granted  Strothers'
motion for  leave to file  a supplemental affidavit  of indigency
and on January 27, 1997,  Strothers filed what purported to  be a
Supplemental Affidavit of Indigence.  
     This  pleading  consists of  a  series of  statements, which
includes pro se allegations that Strothers is neither on welfare,
collecting  unemployment, nor employed, yet is not homeless.  The
document, although signed by Strothers, is not notarized.
     Eighth District Loc. App. R. 8(A) states:
          No original action  may be accepted for  filing in
          this Court  unless the  party bringing  the action
          shall  have  first  deposited  with  the  Clerk of
          Courts the  sum of one hundred  dollars ($100.00),
                                 - 3 -
          as  security  for the  payment  of costs  that may
          accrue  in  the  action.    If  the  plaintiff  or
          relator, by affidavit,  shows inability by  reason
          of indigency  to pay  or secure  costs, the  clerk
          shall  receive and file  the petition without such
          deposit.  (Emphasis added.)
     R.C.  2319.02  defines  an  affidavit   as  "***  a  written
declaration  under  oath,  made  without  notice to  the  adverse
party." 
     In dismissing a similar case  under similar circumstances in
Rudd v.  Graham, (1996),  74 Ohio  St.3d 1506,  the Ohio  Supreme
Court stated that if a "*** relator's statement is not notarized,
it does not  meet the requirements  of an affidavit of  indigency
and therefore  is not  sufficient for  waiver of  the docket  fee
***."  Id.          Here,  Strothers'   purported  affidavit   of
indigency  is  not  notarized.    Consequently,  we  conclude  in
accordance  with  Rudd  v.  Graham,   supra,  that  the  document
submitted by Strothers  is not  an affidavit as  defined by  R.C.
2319.02 and, therefore, does not  meet the requirements necessary
to waive the filing fee in this instance.  Accordingly, this writ
is dismissed.  Relator to pay costs.
     Writ dismissed.  
DYKE, J., and           
KARPINSKI, J., CONCUR      
.