Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning
IN RE: CORTEZ D. OF ANDERSON, Petitioner,
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, WARDEN, Respondent.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
D. Anderson, CoreCivic, fka Northeast Ohio Correctional
Center, Pro se.
Christopher Larose, Warden, CoreCivic, fka Northeast Ohio
Correctional Center, Pro se.
BEFORE: Carol Ann Robb, Gene Donofrio, Cheryl L. Waite,
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Cortez D. of Anderson, proceeding on his own behalf, has
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition
alleges that he is being imprisoned and restrained of his
liberty at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (NEOCC),
operated by CoreCivic, located at 2240 Hubbard Road in
Youngstown, Mahoning County, Ohio.
writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary writ and will only
be issued in certain circumstances of unlawful restraint of a
person's liberty where there is no adequate legal remedy
of law. In re Pianowski, 7th Dist. No. 03 MA 16,
2003-Ohio-3881; State ex rel. Pirman v. Money, 69
Ohio St.3d 591, 593, 635 N.E.2d 26 (1994). The burden is on
the Petitioner to establish a right to release. Halleck
v. Koloski, 4 Ohio St.2d 76, 212 N.E.2d 601 (1965).
habeas petition is deficient on several grounds. First, the
petition does not allege an unlawful restraint. R.C. 2725.01
provides: "Whoever is unlawfully restrained of
his liberty, or entitled to the custody of another, of which
custody such person is unlawfully deprived, may prosecute a
writ of habeas corpus * * *." (Emphasis added.) The
petition states that he is "imprisoned and restrained of
his liberty." Petitioner does not claim that he is being
restrained unlawfully, and therefore, he has failed to allege
the first and primary element of a habeas action.
Petitioner did not attach his commitment papers to the
petition. R.C. 2725.04 requires the following:
Application for the writ of habeas corpus shall be by
petition, signed and verified either by the party for whose
relief it is intended, or by some person for him, and shall
* * *
(D) A copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such
person shall be exhibited, if it can be procured without
impairing the efficiency of the remedy; or, if the
imprisonment or detention is without legal authority, such
fact must appear.
Ohio Supreme Court has explained, "[t]hese commitment
papers are necessary for a complete understanding of the
petition. Without them, the petition is fatally defective.
When a petition is presented to a court that does not comply
with R.C. 2725.04(D), there is no showing of how the
commitment was procured and there is nothing before the court
on which to make a determined judgment except, of course, the
bare allegations of petitioner's application."
Bloss v. Rogers, 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 146, 602 N.E.2d
602 (1992). The papers must be included with the petition and
failure to file them cannot be cured by filing them at some
later point in the habeas proceedings. Boyd v.
Money, 82 Ohio St.3d 388, 389, 696 N.E.2d 568 (1998);
Davis v. Banks, 7th Dist. No. 12 NO 397,
2013-Ohio-1852, ¶ 8.
it does not contain an affidavit of prior civil actions. When
an inmate files a civil action against a governmental entity
or employee, R.C. 2969.25(A) requires the petitioner to file
an affidavit with the petition describing all civil actions
and appeals that petitioner has filed in state or federal
court within the past five years. The Ohio Supreme Court has
held that the "requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are
mandatory and failure to comply with them requires dismissal