State ex rel. Stith v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
2016 Ohio 7867
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Harold Stith, an inmate, filed an original action for a writ of mandamus seeking a new parole hearing or an earlier hearing date, alleging the Parole Board failed to give meaningful consideration to his rehabilitative programming and positive institutional behavior at his March 21, 2013 hearing.
- Stith was previously denied parole at a November 2, 2010 hearing and again at the March 21, 2013 hearing; the Board continued his next hearing for 59 months.
- The 2010 decision specifically noted OASIS participation; the 2013 decision stated Stith had "taken some relevant programs and showed some positive offender change and motivation" but did not list program names and cited violent history and prior supervision failures.
- Respondents (DRC and Parole Board) moved to dismiss, arguing Stith lacked a clear legal right and had adequate remedies at law (e.g., § 1983).
- The magistrate recommended dismissal, concluding the Board adequately considered Stith's conduct and that Stith had a § 1983 remedy; the court adopted the magistrate's decision but modified it: the court sustained Stith's objection that he does not have an adequate remedy at law, yet dismissed the mandamus petition because Stith still failed to show a clear legal right or duty entitling him to relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parole Board abused discretion by not giving meaningful consideration to Stith's programming at 2013 hearing | Stith: Board acknowledged program participation and positive behavior but still imposed a 59‑month continuance; that shows lack of meaningful consideration | DRC: Board expressly acknowledged programming and positive change; no requirement to list programs by name; continuance within administrative-code limits | Court: Board provided adequate consideration; no abuse of discretion shown |
| Whether Board was required to identify specific programs in its written rationale | Stith: 2010 rationale named OASIS; 2013 rationale omitted program names, implying inadequate review | DRC: No legal duty to enumerate each program in denial rationale | Court: No duty to list each program; omission does not demonstrate lack of meaningful review |
| Whether a 59‑month continuance violated applicable rules or was unreasonable | Stith: 59 months was excessive given positive programming and conduct | DRC: Ohio Adm.Code allows continuances up to 10 years; 59 months is within limits | Court: 59 months is within Ohio Adm.Code limits; not unlawful |
| Whether mandamus is the proper remedy or relator has an adequate remedy at law | Stith: Sought mandamus to compel a new/earlier parole hearing | DRC: Relator can pursue federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Dotson) | Court: Sustained relator's objection that he does not have an adequate remedy at law, but nonetheless dismissed mandamus because relator failed to show a clear legal right or respondents’ clear legal duty to provide the requested relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28 (Ohio 1983) (three requirements for mandamus relief)
- State ex rel. Martin v. Corrigan, 25 Ohio St.3d 29 (Ohio 1986) (writ cannot control discretionary decision but can compel exercise of discretion when duty exists)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (Ohio 1988) (motion-to-dismiss standards: accept complaint facts and reasonable inferences)
- Dotson v. Wilkinson, 329 F.3d 463 (6th Cir. 2003) (parole-eligibility challenges may be cognizable under § 1983)