STATE OF OHIO EX REL. DAJUAN BANKS v. JOHN/JANE DOE, WILLOUGHBY MUNICIPAL COURT, ET AL.
C.A. No. 22CA011834
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
June 21, 2022
[Cite as State ex rel. Banks v. Doe, 2022-Ohio-2084.]
ORIGINAL ACTION IN HABEAS CORPUS
{1} Petitioner DaJuan Banks has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus naming three respondents, but only asking this Court to order Respondent Keith Foley, Warden of Grafton Correctional Institution, to release him from prison. This is Mr. Banks’ third attempt to file the same petition asserting the same claims against the same three respondents. All three respondents moved to dismiss. Because Mr. Banks’ failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of
{2}
{3} Mr. Banks failed to comply with the requirements that he file an affidavit of prior civil actions or appeals identifying all of the parties and all of the civil actions or appeals he filed in the previous five years and filing a statement of his prisoner trust account for the six months preceding the filing of his action.
Affidavit of Prior Civil Actions
{4} An inmate must “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.”
{5} Mr. Banks filed an affidavit of prior actions, something he failed to do in the last case that was dismissed. The affidavit of prior civil actions is incomplete, however. It fails to identify the parties to all of the prior civil actions, instead listing some of them as “et al.” The affidavit also fails to include one civil action, a civil appeal in the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, as noted by the motions to dismiss. Mr. Banks did not respond to the motions to dismiss to argue that he did not fail to include that civil action in his affidavit. Accordingly, this Court concludes that Mr. Banks failed to file an affidavit of civil actions in compliance with
{6} Mr. Banks did not pay the cost deposit required by this Court‘s Local Rules. He also failed to comply with
{7} The Supreme Court‘s decisions make clear that
{8} In this case, the statement of the prisoner trust account covers the period through November 2021 but this case was not filed until January 2022. Mr. Banks failed to file a statement of his prisoner trust account for the preceding six months. Because Mr. Banks failed to comply with this mandatory requirement, this Court must dismiss this action.
Motions to Dismiss
{9} All three respondents moved to dismiss. They alleged Mr. Banks failed to comply with
{11} “[T]he proper respondent [in a habeas corpus action] is the individual who is directly responsible for keeping the petitioner in custody, i.e., [the warden].” Spears v. DeWeese, 102 Ohio St.3d 202, 2004-Ohio-2364, ¶ 4. As to John/Jane Doe and Judge Condon, there is no allegation that either of those respondents are holding Mr. Banks in their custody, so habeas corpus is not appropriate as to them.
{12} As to Warden Foley, the motion to dismiss would also be granted. Mr. Banks has couched his argument in terms of the trial court‘s subject matter jurisdiction. His key argument, however, is that he is not guilty of the crimes to which he entered guilty pleas. To the extent he argues there were errors in procedure, habeas corpus “is not available to remedy nonjurisdictional errors when there is or was an adequate remedy at law.” Davis v. Hill, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-485, ¶ 6.
Conclusion
{13} Because Mr. Banks did not comply with the mandatory requirements of
JENNIFER L. HENSAL
FOR THE COURT
SUTTON, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
DAJUAN BANKS, Pro se, Petitioner.
CHARLES E. COULSON, Prosecuting Attorney, and MICHAEL L. DELEONE and KELLY A. ECHOLS, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for Respondent Judge Condon.
MICHAEL C. LUCAS, Attorney at Law, for Respondent John/Jane Doe, Willoughby Municipal Court.
DAVE YOST, Attorney General, and JERRI L. FOSNAUGHT, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent Warden Foley.