State ex rel. Bailey v. Parole Bd. (Slip Opinions), 152 Ohio St. 3d 426

Background

Five incarcerated "old-law" inmates (Bailey, Schmitz, Morehouse, Hudach, Holland) filed an original action for mandamus against the Ohio Parole Board alleging an unwritten policy of routinely denying parole to old-law offenders.
Plaintiffs relied on public statements by parole-board officials (2012–2014) suggesting that most parole-eligible inmates already had been released after post-1996 sentencing reform, leaving only the "worst" inmates.
Plaintiffs alleged the board’s presumptive view of old-law offenders made parole hearings "meaningless"; they sought new parole hearings for inmates with hearings after January 1, 2010.
They also requested declarations and administrative sanctions under R.C. 124.34(A), alleged public corruption/perjury/falsification, and sought an order compelling the ODRC director to discipline board members.
The Parole Board moved to dismiss; the Tenth District adopted a magistrate’s recommendation and dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs stated a mandamus claim that the board failed to give "meaningful consideration" to parole applications of old-law offenders	Board has an unwritten policy or mindset presuming old-law offenders are "the worst," so hearings are meaningless	Denials reflect the board’s discretion and do not show predetermined, unlawful refusal or reliance on incorrect facts	Dismissed — allegations do not show denial of "meaningful consideration"; discretionary weighing of offense seriousness is permissible when based on correct facts
Whether prior denials of parole or officials’ statements suffice to prove a systemic, prohibitory policy	Statements and pattern of denials prove a de facto policy	Statements alone (and denials) do not establish that each relator’s hearing was meaningless or that the board refused to consider parole	Dismissed — statements/previous denials insufficient to prove the board failed to meaningfully consider individual cases
Whether plaintiffs may obtain declaratory relief or private enforcement for alleged public-corruption crimes against board members	Seek declaration of violation and sanctions for public corruption/perjury/falsification	Declaratory relief in original actions is outside court of appeals’ original jurisdiction; criminal statutes do not create private civil causes of action	Dismissed — court lacked original declaratory jurisdiction; criminal statutes do not provide private enforcement
Whether the ODRC director has a ministerial duty to discipline parole-board members under R.C. 124.34(A)	Director must take administrative action against board members for misfeasance	Director is not the appointing authority for parole board employees; R.C. 124.34(A) does not create a private right to compel disciplinary action	Dismissed — no clear ministerial duty by director and no mandamus remedy to force disciplinary removal

Key Cases Cited

Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (constitutional rule that inmates have no right to parole release before sentence expiration)
Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 97 Ohio St.3d 456 (Ohio recognizes an expectation of "meaningful consideration" for parole; parole authority has broad discretion)
State ex rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson, 69 Ohio St.3d 489 (no statutory entitlement to parole prior to sentence expiration)
State ex rel. Keith v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 141 Ohio St.3d 375 (parole decision can be invalid if based on substantively incorrect file information)
State ex rel. Dynamic Industries, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 147 Ohio St.3d 422 (limits on an appellate court’s original declaratory-judgment jurisdiction)
State ex rel. Talwar v. State Med. Bd., 104 Ohio St.3d 290 (mandamus does not compel state agencies to take disciplinary action against employees)