State ex rel. Herman Harris, Jr., Petitioner,
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction et al., Respondents.
HABEAS CORPUS ON OBJECTIONS
Harris, Jr., pro se.
1} Petitioner, Herman Harris, Jr., an inmate at
London Correctional Institution, has filed an original action
requesting a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner's
complaint named as respondents the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction and the warden of London
2} The matter was referred to a magistrate of this
court pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and LocR. 13(M) of the Tenth
District Court of Appeals. The magistrate issued the appended
decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law,
recommending this court sua sponte dismiss the complaint on
grounds this court lacks jurisdiction in habeas corpus over
petitioner, who is confined in Madison County.
3} Petitioner has filed pro se objections to the
magistrate's decision. Petitioner appears to acknowledge
this court's lack of territorial jurisdiction over this
action, but requests this court grant a "waiver" of
jurisdiction. (Petitioner's Objs. at 4.)
4} R.C. 2725.03 states:
If a person restrained of his liberty is an inmate of a state
benevolent or correctional institution, the location of which
is fixed by statute and at the time is in the custody of the
officers of the institution, no court or judge other than the
courts or judges of the county in which the institution is
located has jurisdiction to issue or determine a writ of
habeas corpus for his production or discharge. Any writ
issued by a court or judge of another county to an officer or
person in charge at the state institution to compel the
production or discharge of an inmate thereof is void.
5} As set forth in the magistrate's findings of
fact, petitioner is currently incarcerated in London
Correctional Institution, located in Madison County, Ohio.
This court has previously held that "R.C. 2725.03
requires that petitions for habeas corpus be filed in the
county where an inmate is detained," and such statute
"has been found to be constitutional by the Supreme
Court of Ohio in Bridges v. McMackin (1989), 44 Ohio
St.3d 135." Gillespie v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs.
(In re Writ of Habeas Corpus), 10th Dist. No. 02AP-460,
2002-Ohio-4507, ¶ 4. See also State ex rel. McCardle
v. Hageman, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-1176, 2007-Ohio-3290,
¶ 4, citing R.C. 2725.03 ("[T]his court has no
power to grant habeas corpus relief to an inmate incarcerated
outside the limits of our jurisdiction, Franklin County,
Ohio. Instead, [petitioner] must file his complaint for a
writ of habeas corpus in the county in which he is
confined."). Accordingly, the magistrate properly
concluded this court lacks jurisdiction to determine
petitioner's habeas petition.
6} In the alternative, petitioner requests this
court to "transfer the entire proceedings to the Twelfth
Appellate District Court of Appeals of Ohio."
(Petitioner's Objs. at 4.) However, because this court
lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition, we similarly
"lack the authority to transfer venue to the appropriate
court or to allow petitioner to amend his petition."
Lopez v. Warden, Trumbull Corr. Inst, 11th Dist. No.
2017-T-0015, 2017-Ohio-7460, ¶ 7, citing
Dayton Regional Transit Auth. v. State Emp. Relations
Bd., 10th Dist. No. 14AP-876, 2015-Ohio-2049, ¶ 40.
7} In accordance with the magistrate's
recommendation, which we adopt in its entirety,
petitioner's objections are overruled and we sua sponte
dismiss the action.
overruled; action dismissed.
DORRIAN and LUPER ...