Richards v. Cuyahoga Cty. Corr. Ctr. Warden Shemo

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 27, 2026
• Docket: 116235
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Richards v. Cuyahoga Cty. Corr. Ctr. Warden Shemo, 2026-Ohio-1203.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JEREMY RICHARDS, :

Petitioner, : No. 116235 v. :

CUYAHOGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS : CENTER WARDEN DAMARA SHEMO, ET AL., :

Respondent. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: PETITION DENIED DATED: March 27, 2026

Writ of Habeas Corpus Order No. 593752

Appearances:

Jeremy Richards, pro se.

TIMOTHY W. CLARY, J.:

On March 13, 2026, the petitioner, Jeremy Richards, commenced this

habeas corpus petition against the respondents, the Cuyahoga County Corrections

Center Warden Damara Shemo, Judge Carl Mazzone, the Fairview Park Police

Department, the Parma Police Department, and the North Olmsted Police Department. He seeks the dismissal of the three underlying cases, State v. Richards,

Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-24-694435, CR-25-698760, and CR-24-703625, or his

immediate release from jail while awaiting trial because of judicial misconduct and

police brutality and misconduct. For the following reasons, this court dismisses this

habeas corpus petition sua sponte.

Richards in his 13-page complaint avers that he was arrested on false

pretenses in retaliation for commencing a $1,000,000 lawsuit for police brutality.

Habeas corpus is not a remedy for such claims. In Simpson v. Maxwell, 1 Ohio St.2d

71 (1964), the petitioner alleged in a habeas corpus petition that he was arrested on

a false and forged affidavit and that he was innocent of the charges. The Supreme

Court of Ohio ruled that the “jurisdiction of a trial court is invoked by a valid

indictment and is not dependent upon the validity of the process by which the

accused is originally apprehended. . . . The guilt or innocence of an accused is not

cognizable in habeas corpus.” Id. and State ex rel. Rackley v. Sloan, 2016-Ohio-

3416, ¶ 6. In State v. Thorpe, 2005-Ohio-893 (10th Dist.), the appellate court

addressed claims of police misconduct, including destruction of evidence and

excessive force, as a habeas corpus claim. It denied those claims, inter alia, because

habeas corpus is not a remedy to review errors or irregularities of a conviction. Nor

is habeas corpus available to examine the sufficiency of the evidence. Webber v.

Kelly, 2008-Ohio-6695.

Richards also claims that the trial judge has done everything to

deprive him of his due-process rights, including the ability to defend himself. Such claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus. In State ex rel. Gibson v. Sloan, 2016-

Ohio-3422, ¶ 10, the Supreme Court of Ohio noted that habeas corpus is not

available to challenge the neutrality of a trial court judge. This court summarily

dismissed claims of judicial bias in Brisbane v. Bedford Mun. Court, 2023-Ohio-

4132 (8th Dist.). State v. Thorpe also rejected claims of judicial impropriety, such

as denying a defendant the right to proceed pro se and the right to a speedy trial.

Ellis v. McMackin, 65 Ohio St.3d 161 (1992).

Although Richards claims that he was denied any access to his

commitment papers, the provisions of R.C. 2725.04(D) are mandatory. The failure

to include all his commitment papers requires dismissal. State ex rel. Davis v.

Sheldon, 2022-Ohio-2789.

In addition, habeas corpus claims can be maintained only against the

jailer or warden who presently has legal custody of the individual. Hamilton v.

Collins, 2013-Ohio-4101, ¶ 3 (11th Dist.). Thus, his claims against the judge and the

police departments are misplaced and are dismissed.

Accordingly, this court dismisses the petition for habeas corpus sua

sponte. Petitioner to pay costs. This court directs the clerk of courts to serve all

parties notice of the judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required by

Civ.R. 58(B). Petition denied.

_______________________ TIMOTHY W. CLARY, JUDGE

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, A.J., and ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR