2004 Ohio 491 | Ohio Ct. App. | 2004
{¶ 2} In Coleman v. Stobbs (1986),
{¶ 3} The court of appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court of Ohio
{¶ 4} reversed and observed:
"The loss of liberty that Coleman claims to have suffered did not occurby reason of the APA's detainer but, as we have noted, from his arrestand incarceration on a new charge of grand theft and his failure to posta $5,000 bond. Since he was in custody pursuant to a lawful court order,and it is undisputed that the court had jurisdiction to make that order,he was not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus."
{¶ 5} Id. at 139.
{¶ 6} In case No. CR-441647, Perotti has failed to post the $10,000 bond set by the court of common pleas. In Coleman, the Supreme Court found that "the APA's delay in holding a final parole revocation hearing, while Coleman was incarcerated and awaiting trial on the charge of grand theft, was neither unreasonable nor prejudicial as a matter of law." Id. Coleman requires that we make the same finding in this case. Perotti has not posted the bond set in case No. CR-441647. It is undisputed that the court of common pleas has jurisdiction to hear the charges against Perotti. See R.C.
{¶ 7} Perotti also complains that he has been denied adequate medical treatment as well as access to the law library and outside recreation. "[S]tate prisoners challenging the conditions of their confinement have an adequate legal remedy by way of an action under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.Code. See State ex rel. Carter v. Schotten
(1994),
{¶ 8} The APA also argues that the petition should be dismissed because Perotti has not complied with R.C.
{¶ 9} Similarly, Perotti has failed to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) which requires that complaints in original actions be supported by an affidavit from the plaintiff or relator specifying the details of the claim. In his "Affidavit of Indigency, Verity Other Actions," Perotti avers that "all facts in this petition are true and correct." This conclusory statement is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) that the affidavit supporting the complaint specify the details of the claim. "The absence of facts specifying the details of the claim required by Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) is a ground for dismissal." State ex rel. Sansom v. Wilkinson, Cuyahoga App. No. 80743, 2002-Ohio-1385, at 7.
{¶ 10} Nearly two months after the APA moved to dismiss the petition, petitioner filed a motion to supplement and amend his petition to remedy these defects. If we were to grant leave to amend, the petition would still be substantively defective. See Coleman, supra. We have, therefore, denied the motion to supplement and amend petition by separate entry.
{¶ 11} We also note that Perotti's petition was filed a second time as State ex rel. Perotti v. McFaul, case No. 83684. By separate entry, we have dismissed case No. 83684 as duplicative.
{¶ 12} Accordingly, we grant respondents' motions to dismiss Case No. 83622. (By separate entry, we have ordered that McFaul's brief in opposition to petition for writ of habeas corpus be treated as a motion to dismiss.) Petitioner Perotti to pay costs. The clerk is directed to serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B).
{¶ 13} The writ is dismissed.
Writ dismissed.
Ann Dyke, P.J., and Timothy E. McMonagle, J., concur.