Lead Opinion
{¶ 2} Appellant is incarcerated at the Trumbull County Correctional Facility. Appellant's incarceration was predicated upon his criminal conviction in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas for a single count of murder, pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 3} On July 15, 2002, appellant, acting pro se, filed a writ of habeas corpus in the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas. Appellant's writ of habeas corpus asserted that the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court failed to conduct a physical examination prior to his amenability hearing, as required by R.C.
{¶ 4} On September 27, 2002, appellee countered by filing a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss. Appellee's motion to dismiss maintained that the record established appellant had, in fact, received a physical examination prior to the amenability hearing. In addition, appellee asserted that appellant's writ of habeas corpus did not comply with R.C.
{¶ 5} On October 21, 2002, appellant filed a response to the motion to dismiss. As part of his response, appellant requested leave of court to supplement his writ of habeas corpus to comply with R.C.
{¶ 6} On June 11, 2003, the common pleas court issued a judgment entry granting appellee's motion to dismiss solely "on the basis of Appellant's failure to comply with O.R.C. Section
{¶ 7} "[1.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion to the prejudice of the Relator/Appellant in violation of due process of the law by denying Appellant's Writ of Habeas Corpus for failing to comply with R.C.
{¶ 8} "[2.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion to the prejudice of the Relator/Appellant in violation of Article
{¶ 9} First, we will set forth the appropriate standard of review. Under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Our review of a trial court's judgment dismissing a claim pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) is de novo. West v. Sheets, 11th Dist. No. 2001-L-183,
{¶ 10} As such, to grant a dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), it must appear beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief. Celeste v. Wiseco Piston,
{¶ 11} Under his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant leave of court to allow him to supplement his writ of habeas corpus with the affidavit attached to his response. Thus, appellant concludes that the trial court erred in dismissing his writ of habeas corpus based solely upon his initial non-compliance with R.C.
{¶ 12} A writ of habeas corpus is necessary in certain exceptional circumstances where there is an unlawful restraint of an individual's liberty and there is no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.Johnson v. Timmerman-Cooper,
{¶ 13} In the instant case, appellant's writ of habeas corpus alleged that the Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court did not have jurisdiction to enter a conviction or sentence. Appellant based this claim upon the Cuyahoga Juvenile Court's purported failure to administer a physical examination, in accordance with R.C.
{¶ 14} An allegation of an improper bindover raises a potential habeas corpus claim. See, e.g., In re Baker v. Stewart (1996),
{¶ 15} Moreover, appellant's writ of habeas corpus represents an appropriate remedy. Id. "`[W]hen a court's judgment is void because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, habeas corpus is generally an appropriate remedy despite the availability of appeal.'" Davis v. Wolfe,
{¶ 16} Accordingly, we first note that, under Ohio law, a writ of habeas corpus is a civil action. Fuqua v. Williams,
{¶ 17} R.C.
{¶ 18} "(A) At the time that an inmate commences a civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee, the inmate shall file with the court an affidavit that contains a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action that the inmate has filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court. The affidavit shall include all of the following for each of those civil actions or appeals:
{¶ 19} "(1) A brief description of the nature of the civil action or appeal;
{¶ 20} "(2) The case name, case number, and the court in which the civil action or appeal was brought;
{¶ 21} "(3) The name of each party to the civil action or appeal;
{¶ 22} "(4) The outcome of the civil action or appeal, including whether the court dismissed the civil action or appeal as frivolous or malicious under state or federal law or rule of court, whether the court made an award against the inmate or the inmate's counsel of record for frivolous conduct under section
{¶ 23} If a prisoner fails to comply with the foregoing provisions, his or her habeas corpus action will be dismissed. See, e.g., Fuqua at ¶ 9. The Ohio Supreme Court, however, has held that Civ.R. 15(A) is applicable to a habeas corpus action and would allow a prisoner to amend his or her original writ. Gaskins at 150.
{¶ 24} In relevant part, Civ.R. 15(A) states:
{¶ 25} "A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served * * *. Otherwise a party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party. Leave of court shall be freely given when justice so requires. * * *"
{¶ 26} The record before us establishes that the trial court never issued a written ruling on appellant's request for leave to amend his writ of habeas corpus. "`[W]hen a trial court fails to rule on a motion, the appellate court will presume the trial court overruled the motion.'"Karlen v. Carfangia (June 1, 2001), 11th Dist. No. 2000-T-0081, 2001 Ohio App. Lexis 2481, at 9, quoting Dozer v. Dozer (1993),
{¶ 27} That being said, the decision to grant leave to file an amended complaint is within the trial court's sound discretion. Absent an abuse of discretion, this court will not reverse the trial court's determination. Csejpes v. Cleveland Catholic Dioces (1996),
{¶ 28} Despite the trial court's broad discretion, a reading of Civ.R. 15(A) "indicates that a liberal amendment policy is favored."Butcher v. Three M Homes, Inc., (Mar. 31, 1995), 11th Dist. No. 93-G-1783,
{¶ 29} After careful examination of the record before us, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant leave for appellant to amend his writ of habeas corpus, as there is no evidence of bad faith, undue delay, or undue prejudice. First, absent from the record is any evidence that appellant's failure to initially comply with R.C.
{¶ 30} Moreover, appellant was first notified of his failure to comply with R.C.
{¶ 31} Finally, the record fails to establish any undue prejudice incurred by appellee due to appellant's initial failure to comply with R.C.
{¶ 32} An examination of appellant's affidavit and list of recent civil actions confirms that appellant has fully complied with the statutory prerequisites of R.C.
{¶ 33} Appellee cites to Fuqua in an attempt to establish that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's request for leave of court to comply with R.C.
{¶ 34} The distinguishable factor of Fuqua is that, on appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, the petitioner's sole argument was that R.C.
{¶ 35} Similarly, in Hawkins v. S. Ohio Correctional Facility,
{¶ 36} Contrary to the holdings of Fuqua and Hawkins, in Gaskins, the Ohio Supreme Court expressly held, "[t]he Civil Rules may apply to habeas cases where not `clearly inapplicable' by their nature. * * * We do not find Civ.R. 15(A) clearly inapplicable to habeas cases. Therefore, we hold that the court of appeals should have allowed the motion to amend and considered the bindover issue." (Internal citation omitted.) Id. at 150.
{¶ 37} This broad statement of the law fails to carve out an exception which would preclude a petitioner from amending his or her writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to Civ.R. 15(A), to comply with the filing requirements of R.C.
{¶ 38} That being said, our examination of appellant's request for leave of court has determined that there is no evidence of bad faith, undue delay, or undue prejudice. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion by denying appellant's request for leave and dismissing appellant's writ of habeas corpus on the basis of appellant's failure to comply with R.C.
{¶ 39} Our analysis of appellant's first assignment of error has determined that the trial court erred by dismissing appellant's writ of habeas corpus based upon his failure to comply with R.C.
{¶ 40} Based upon the foregoing analysis, appellant's first assignment of error is with merit and his second assignment of error is moot. We hereby reverse the judgment of the court and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
O'Neill, J., concurs, Grendell, J., dissents with Dissenting Opinion.
Dissenting Opinion
{¶ 41} I respectfully dissent.
{¶ 42} With all due respect to my colleagues in the majority, we are not asked here to determine whether Snitzky's claim of jurisdictional error was sufficient to sustain his writ of habeas corpus, but, rather, whether his failure to comply with the requirement under R.C.
{¶ 43} In Fuqua v. Williams,
{¶ 44} While the majority is correct that the primary holding inFuqua is that R.C.
{¶ 45} The majority attempts to distinguish Fuqua from the case at bar by stating that, "at no time did the Court hold that a petitioner is barred from amending his original petition to conform with the statutory mandates of R.C.
{¶ 46} Furthermore, the majority's attempt to distinguish Hawkins from the instant case is inapposite. The majority asserts that the distinction between Hawkins and the case at bar is that, "the Court's holding was predicated upon the petitioner's failure to comply with the commitment-paper and verification requirements of R.C.
{¶ 47} Moreover, while the majority is correct that Civ.R. 15(A) is not "clearly inapplicable to habeas cases," Gaskins v. Shiplevy,
{¶ 48} In this case, it is undisputed that appellant failed to file the R.C.
{¶ 49} Therefore, the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas should be affirmed.
The Clerk of Courts is instructed to substitute the entire Opinion of this Court's December 23, 2004 Opinion with the attached Opinion.