Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
BARRY THOMAS, STATE EX REL. -vs- DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR: MANSFIELD, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS; EDWARD SHELDON
Date: 05-19-2020
Case Number: 2020 CA 0042
Judge: Scott Gwin
Court: COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Plaintiff's Attorney: GARY D. BISHOP
Defendant's Attorney:
habeas corpus and his petition is sua sponte dismissed. We are permitted to dismiss a
habeas corpus petition sua sponte if the petition does not contain a facially valid claim.
State ex rel. Crigger v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 82 Ohio St.3d 270, 271, 695 N.E.2d 254
(1988).
{�4} Mr. Thomas�s petition is deficient in the following manner. First, he did not
state a facially valid claim for habeas relief because he failed to comply with R.C.
2725.04(D). This statute requires a copy of the commitment or cause of detention be
attached to the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Without the commitment papers, the
writ of habeas corpus is fatally defective. Brown v. Rogers, 72 Ohio St.3d 339, 341, 650
Richland County, Case No. 2020 CA 0042 3
N.E.2d 422 (1995). A court may sua sponte dismiss a petition for habeas corpus that fails
to comply with R.C. 2725.04(D). See State ex rel. Wynn v. McFaul, 81 Ohio St.3d 193,
194, 690 N.E.2d 7 (1998) (Ohio Supreme Court affirmed court of appeals� sua sponte
dismissal of habeas corpus petition for failure to comply with R.C. 2725.04(D.))
{�5} Second, Mr. Thomas�s petition includes an affidavit of indigency wherein he
requests waiver of prepayment of the Court�s filing fees. However, Mr. Thomas failed to
include in his affidavit of indigency a statement setting forth the balance in his inmate
account for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier, in
violation of R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). A court may sua sponte dismiss a writ of habeas corpus
for failing to comply R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). See State ex rel. Hairston v. Franklin Cty. Ct. of
Common Pleas, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 17AP-502, 2018-Ohio-148, � 9 (�Because
petitioner has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C), it is
this magistrate's decision that this court should sua sponte dismiss his habeas corpus
action.�)
Writ of Habeas Corpus. The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See Civ.R.58(B).
About This Case
What was the outcome of BARRY THOMAS, STATE EX REL. -vs- DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITA...?
The outcome was: For the foregoing reasons, we sua sponte dismiss Mr. Thomas�s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See Civ.R.58(B).
Which court heard BARRY THOMAS, STATE EX REL. -vs- DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITA...?
This case was heard in COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, oh. The presiding judge was Scott Gwin.
Who were the attorneys in BARRY THOMAS, STATE EX REL. -vs- DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITA...?
Plaintiff's attorney: GARY D. BISHOP. Defendant's attorney: .
When was BARRY THOMAS, STATE EX REL. -vs- DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITA... decided?
This case was decided on May 19, 2020.