2022 Ohio 2084
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background:
- Petitioner DaJuan Banks, an inmate at Grafton Correctional Institution, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus naming Warden Keith Foley, Judge Condon (Lake C.P. Court), and a John/Jane Doe from Willoughby Municipal Court; petition sought release from custody.
- This was Banks’ third filing asserting the same claims against the same respondents; all three respondents moved to dismiss.
- Ohio law (R.C. 2969.25) imposes mandatory filing requirements for inmate civil actions: an affidavit listing prior civil actions (past five years) and a certified six‑month prisoner trust account statement when seeking to proceed without paying costs.
- Banks submitted an affidavit of prior actions but it was incomplete (used “et al.” and omitted a listed civil appeal in the Eleventh District); he did not respond to the motions to dismiss to contest that omission.
- Banks submitted an inmate account statement that did not cover the six months immediately preceding the petition filing and failed to pay the required cost deposit under local rules.
- The court dismissed the petition for failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25 and, alternatively, held habeas was inappropriate on the merits because Banks’ claims alleged nonjurisdictional errors and only the warden is the proper habeas respondent.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with R.C. 2969.25 affidavit requirement | Banks filed an affidavit of prior actions (implying compliance) | Respondents: affidavit incomplete, omitted parties and one appeal | Court: affidavit noncompliant; dismissal required |
| Prisoner trust account statement required by R.C. 2969.25(C) | Banks submitted an account statement (arguing it suffices) | Respondents: statement did not cover the six months preceding filing; no cost deposit paid | Court: statement improper period; substantial compliance not allowed; dismissal required |
| Proper respondents for habeas corpus | Banks named warden, judge, and municipal‑court John/Jane Doe | Respondents: only the custodian (warden) is proper habeas respondent; judge/municipal clerk not holding petitioner | Court: habeas inappropriate as to judge and Doe because they do not hold custody |
| Availability of habeas for alleged trial errors/nonjurisdictional defects | Banks contends convictions or pleas were invalid (seeks release) | Respondents: habeas is limited to unlawful restraint or void convictions for lack of jurisdiction; nonjurisdictional errors have other remedies | Court: claims are nonjurisdictional; habeas not available to remedy them; dismissal would be warranted on merits too |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Graham v. Findlay Mun. Court, 106 Ohio St.3d 63 (2005) (R.C. 2969.25 requirements are mandatory; failure to comply subjects inmate action to dismissal)
- State ex rel. Roden v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 159 Ohio St.3d 314 (2020) (R.C. 2969.25(C) account statement requirement admits no substantial compliance)
- Pegan v. Crawmer, 76 Ohio St.3d 97 (1996) (habeas relief available only for unlawful restraint or void judgments for lack of jurisdiction)
- Spears v. DeWeese, 102 Ohio St.3d 202 (2004) (proper habeas respondent is the custodian who holds the petitioner in custody)