State ex rel. Miller v. Bradshaw

2016 Ohio 5033

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 18, 2016
• Docket: 15CA110
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Miller v. Bradshaw, 2016-Ohio-5033.]

COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., : JUDGES: JERRY MILLER : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Petitioner : Hon. John W. Wise, J. : -vs- : : MARGARET A. BRADSHAW, : Case No. 15CA110 : Respondent : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Habeas Corpus

JUDGMENT: Dismissed

DATE OF JUDGMENT: July 18, 2016

APPEARANCES:

For Petitioner For Respondent

JERRY MILLER, Pros Se MICHAEL DeWINE Inmate No. a487-391 Attorney General of Ohio Richland Correctinal Institution By: JERRI L. FOSNAUGHT P. O. Box 8107 Assistant Attorney General Mansfield, OH 44901 150 East Gay Street, 16th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Richland County, Case No. 15CA110 2

Farmer, J.

{¶1} Jerry Miller has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus alleging he is

entitled to immediate release from prison because his sentences have expired.

Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. Both parties have also filed other dispositive motions which are denied

based upon our resolution in this case.

{¶2} Petitioner argues we should deny the motion to dismiss because the motion

was untimely filed. Even if we disregard the motion filed by Respondent, this Court can

sua sponte dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. “[S]ua

sponte dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

is appropriate if the complaint is frivolous or the claimant obviously cannot prevail on the

facts alleged in the complaint. State ex rel. Thompson v. Spon, 83 Ohio St.3d 551, 553,

1998–Ohio–298; State ex rel. Bruggeman v. Ingraham, 87 Ohio St.3d 230, 231, 1999–

Ohio–27.

{¶3} This is Petitioner’s third habeas corpus petition filed since he was

incarcerated in 2005. In the first two petitions, arguments similar to those in the instant

petition were raised asserting Petitioner’s sentences had expired for various reasons.

{¶4} The Supreme Court has held, “When a petitioner has filed a previous

habeas corpus action, the doctrine of res judicata prevents the petitioner from raising an

issue in a successive habeas petition that the petitioner raised in the previous habeas

action. Hudlin v. Alexander, 63 Ohio St.3d 153, 586 N.E.2d 86 (1992).” Jefferson v.

Bunting, 2016-Ohio-614, ¶ 5 (Ohio). Richland County, Case No. 15CA110 3

{¶5} Petitioner has raised the same or similar claims in the two prior petitions.

Petitioner could have raised in the prior petition(s), and did at least to some degree, the

same claims raised in the instant petition. Therefore, the claims raised in the petition

before us are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. For this reason, the petition is

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

By Farmer, P.J.

Hoffman, J. and

Wise, J. concur.

SGF/as 622