Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ray Perry v. James Wilson

October 18, 2011

RAY PERRY,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES WILSON, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Patricia A. Gaughan

Memorandum of Opinion and Order

Pro se plaintiff Ray Perry filed this action against Ohio Adult Parole Authority ("OAPA") Parole Officer James Wilson. In his Complaint, plaintiff alleges causes of action for malicious prosecution and slander arising from defendant Wilson's testimony against plaintiff in connection with plaintiff's arrest for escape. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF 2). That Motion is granted.

Background

In March 1993, plaintiff was convicted of felonious assault, aggravated burglary, and carrying a concealed weapon ("CCW"). He was sentenced to an indefinite term of five to fifteen years of imprisonment on the felonious assault charge, a concurrent term of eight to twenty-five years on the aggravated burglary charge, and one year plus a consecutive three-year term for the firearm specification. Plaintiff was paroled in August 2001, and ordered to complete his sentence under the supervision of the OAPA.

In March 2002, plaintiff was indicted for the offense of escape for allegedly failing to report to his parole officer following his August 2001 release from prison. Following a jury trial, plaintiff was convicted of escape and sentenced to two years of imprisonment and three years of post-release control. In April 2005, plaintiff was again indicted for the offense of escape. He pled guilty and, on September 25, 2005, was sentenced to serve fifty-five days in jail.

In December 2005, plaintiff was once again indicted for escape. The matter proceeded to a bench trial on August 13, 2007. During that trial, defendant Wilson testified that plaintiff was a "hybrid" parolee, "as he is subject to three years of post-release control (in connection with [his 2002 escape conviction]) and sixteen years of parole (in connection with [his 1993 felonious assault, aggravated burglary, and CCW conviction])." State v. Perry, 2008 WL 4750346 at *2 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Oct. 30, 2008). Defendant Wilson also indicated that plaintiff "would remain under the supervision of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority until 2023." Id.

On August 15, 2007, plaintiff was convicted of one count of escape and sentenced to two years imprisonment and two years of post-release control sanctions. Plaintiff alleges that he was released from prison on August 17, 2010.

Plaintiff has filed numerous lawsuits in this Court relating to the above charges and convictions. Several months prior to his August 2007 trial on escape charges, plaintiff filed Perry v. Wilson, Case No. 1:07CV1144 (N.D. Ohio) (J. O'Malley). In that case, plaintiff claimed that defendant Wilson slandered him by stating that plaintiff violated his parole, and exceeded his authority by filing escape charges against him. That action was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) on July 25, 2007.

Two days after he was sentenced for his August 2007 escape conviction, plaintiff filed another action to challenge the State's ability to prosecute him on escape charges. See Perry v. Collins, Case No. 1:07CV2952 (N.D. Ohio) (J. Gwin). Specifically, he claimed that "those released on PRC are being unlawfully prosecuted for escape pursuant to [Ohio Rev. Code] 2921.34 for failing to visit their parole officer . . .. [T]here is no statute authorizing the prosecution." That action was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

One month after filing the second action challenging the escape charges, plaintiff filed a third case, this time against parole board member Jim Bedra and defendant Wilson. See Perry v. Bedra, Case No. 1:07CV3245 (N.D. Ohio) (J. O'Malley). In his complaint in that case, plaintiff alleged:

Pursuant to R.C. 2967.28 (2005) as it existed in 9/2005, periods of PRC [post-release control] do not run concurrent or consecutive to each other.

A latter felony conviction would terminate a former PRC supervision.

Also, parole and PRC supervisions do not aggregate. A 1 year parole supervision is terminated by a 3 year PRC supervision pursuant to R.C. 2967.28(4)(B). Whereby, after 9/26/2005, I was not on parole pursuant to R.C. 2967.15 or PRC pursuant to R.C. 2967.28. However, I find myself ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.