State ex rel. Jefferson v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Jefferson v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority

714 N.E.2d 926, 86 Ohio St. 3d 304

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 1, 1999

DocketNo. 99-413

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 714 N.E.2d 926 (State ex rel. Jefferson v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Jefferson v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, 714 N.E.2d 926, 86 Ohio St. 3d 304 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Jefferson asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his complaint for a writ of prohibition. For the following reasons, Jefferson’s assertion is meritless.

Despite Jefferson’s claims to the contrary, the in forma pauperis requirements of Sub.H.B. No. 455, i.e., R.C. 2969.21 et seq., are constitutional. See Rash v. Anderson (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 349, 351, 686 N.E.2d 505, 506-507 (Sub.H.B. No. 455 does not violate rights of access to courts, due process, and equal protection, and the right against double jeopardy). And Jefferson does not assert that R.C. 2969.25 is inapplicable to prohibition actions. See State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 422, 696 N.E.2d 594, 595.

Moreover, the issue Jefferson raises here has been previously adjudicated in his court of appeals habeas corpus action, and consequently, the collateral estoppel aspect of res judicata bars Jefferson from relitigating the issue in this action. State ex rel. Williams v. Brigano (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 413, 414, 678 N.E.2d 568, 569; Fort Frye Teachers Assn., OEA/NEA v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 392, 395, 692 N.E.2d 140, 144.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Jefferson asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his complaint for a writ of prohibition. For the following reasons, Jefferson’s assertion is meritless.

Despite Jefferson’s claims to the contrary, the in forma pauperis requirements of Sub.H.B. No. 455, i.e., R.C. 2969.21 et seq., are constitutional. See Rash v. Anderson (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 349, 351, 686 N.E.2d 505, 506-507 (Sub.H.B. No. 455 does not violate rights of access to courts, due process, and equal protection, and the right against double jeopardy). And Jefferson does not assert that R.C. 2969.25 is inapplicable to prohibition actions. See State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 422, 696 N.E.2d 594, 595.

Moreover, the issue Jefferson raises here has been previously adjudicated in his court of appeals habeas corpus action, and consequently, the collateral estoppel aspect of res judicata bars Jefferson from relitigating the issue in this action. State ex rel. Williams v. Brigano (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 413, 414, 678 N.E.2d 568, 569; Fort Frye Teachers Assn., OEA/NEA v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 392, 395, 692 N.E.2d 140, 144.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

714 N.E.2d 926, 86 Ohio St. 3d 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-jefferson-v-ohio-adult-parole-authority-ohio-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack