Saini v. Cook

2016 Ohio 8067

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 2, 2016
• Docket: 15-CA-58
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Saini v. Cook, 2016-Ohio-8067.]

COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

PARDEEP SINGH SAINI : JUDGES: SOUTHEASTERN CORR. INST. : : Hon., William B. Hoffman P.J. Petitioner : Hon., Sheila G. Farmer J. : Hon., Patricia A. Delaney, J. -vs- : : BRIAN COOK, WARDEN : Case No. 15-CA-58 SOUTHEASTERN CORR. INST. : : Respondent : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Habeas Corpus

JUDGMENT: Dismissed

DATE OF JUDGMENT: December 2, 2016

APPEARANCES:

For Relator: Pro Se For Respondent:

Pardeep Saini #687093 Michael DeWine Southeastern Correctional Inst. Ohio Attorney General 5900 BIS Rd. Maura O’Neill Jaite (0058524) Lancaster, Ohio 43130 Senior Assistant Attorney General Ohio Attorney General’s Office Criminal Justice Section 150 East Gay Street, 16th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Fairfield County, Case No. 15-58 2

Hoffman, J.

{¶1} Petitioner Pardeep Singh Saini has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus claiming he is entitled to release from prison because (1) his right to counsel was

violated, and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Respondent has filed a

Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may granted and in the

alternative, a motion for summary judgment.

{¶2} Respondent avers Petitioner has presented a materially false affidavit of

prior civil actions. R.C. 2969.25 requires an incarcerated litigant to file an affidavit

detailing all civil actions filed within the last five years. The affidavit presented by

Petitioner fails to include a prior case Petitioner initiated in this Court. Further,

Respondent maintains Petitioner has also filed a federal habeas action which was not

included in the affidavit. Although the affidavit is incomplete, we will address the merits

of the petition.

{¶3} All of the claims raised by Petitioner are couched in terms of the denial of

counsel and ineffective assistance of counsel.

{¶4} The Supreme Court has explained neither “[c]laims involving the ineffective

assistance of counsel [nor] the alleged denial of the right to counsel are . . . cognizable in

habeas corpus,” Bozsik v. Hudson, 110 Ohio St.3d 245, 2006-Ohio-4356, 852 N.E.2d

1200, ¶ 7.

{¶5} Because the claims raised by Petitioner are not cognizable in habeas

corpus, we grant the motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. Fairfield County, Case No. 15-58 3

By Hoffman, P. J.

Farmer, J. and

Delaney, J. concur. [Cite as Saini v. Cook, 2016-Ohio-8067.]