State ex rel. Turner v. BuntingState ex rel. Turner v. Bunting
Rendered on March 29, 2016
On brief: Donald Turner, pro se.
On brief: Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Hilda Rosenberg, for respondent.
IN HABEAS CORPUS
ON OBJECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE‘S DECISION
SADLER, J.
{¶ 1} Petitioner, Donald Turner, brought this original action requesting a writ of habeas corpus ordering respondent, Jason Bunting, warden at the Marion Correctional Institution, to release him from custody.
{¶ 2} Pursuant to
“[D]ismissal of the pending habeas corpus action is not warranted” in this case, but, rather, the magistrate should have exercised its “option” to transfer the action to the proper court, as the facts and authorities in the petition support granting relief.
(Dec. 21, 2015 Objection, 1.)
{¶ 4} Petitioner does not challenge the magistrate‘s conclusion that this court lacks jurisdiction over the writ of habeas corpus but believes the magistrate was incorrect in dismissing the writ without transferring it to the proper court. Petitioner made this same argument to the magistrate in his motion to strike respondent‘s motion to dismiss. Both in his motion to strike and his objection to the magistrate‘s decision, petitioner does not cite authority which supports a finding that the dismissal in this case is unwarranted.
{¶ 5} In Brown v. Hall, 123 Ohio St.3d 381, 2009-Ohio-5592, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed a judgment on the merits of a habeas corpus petition rendered by an appellate court not located in the county of the subject correctional institution and remanded the cause to that appellate court to dismiss the action. One year earlier, the Supreme Court in Goudlock v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 398, 2008-Ohio-4787, held that an inmate‘s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly dismissed because the inmate filed the petition in a county in which the inmate was not incarcerated, contrary to the jurisdictional requirements of
{¶ 6} In summary, following review of the magistrate‘s decision, an independent review of the record, and due consideration of petitioner‘s objection, we find the magistrate properly determined the facts and applied the appropriate law. Therefore, we adopt the magistrate‘s decision as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein. In accordance with the magistrate‘s decision, the motion for default judgment is denied, and the motion to dismiss is granted.
Objection overruled;
motion for default judgment denied;
motion to dismiss granted;
action dismissed.
KLATT and LUPER SCHUSTER, JJ., concur.
M A G I S T R A T E ’ S D E C I S I O N
Rendered on November 25, 2015
Donald Turner, pro se.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Hilda Rosenberg, for respondent.
IN HABEAS ON RELATOR‘S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND RESPONDENT‘S MOTION TO DISMISS
{¶ 7} Relator, Donald Turner, has filed this original action requesting that this court grant a writ of habeas corpus ordering respondent, Jason Bunting, warden at Marion Correctional Institution, to release him from custody.
Findings of Fact:
{¶ 8} 1. Relator is an inmate currently incarcerated at Marion Correctional Institution in Marion, Ohio.
{¶ 10} 3. On August 28, 2015, relator filed a motion asking this court to grant default judgment against respondent because respondent had failed to plead or defend, or otherwise answer.
{¶ 11} 4. On September 9, 2015, respondent filed a motion to dismiss and opposition to relator‘s motion for default judgment asserting that relator‘s habeas corpus action can only be filed in the county in which relator is currently incarcerated, Marion County.
{¶ 12} 5. On September 30, 2015, relator filed a motion to strike respondent‘s motion to dismiss and opposition to his motion for default judgment.
{¶ 13} 6. The matter is currently before the magistrate on relator‘s motion for default judgment and respondent‘s motion to dismiss.
Conclusions of Law:
{¶ 14} For the reasons that follow, it is this magistrate‘s decision that this court should deny relator‘s request for default judgment and grant respondent‘s motion to dismiss.
{¶ 15} A writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy that is available only in cases “where there is an unlawful restraint of a person‘s liberty and no adequate remedy at law.” Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-Ohio-1980.
{¶ 16}
If a person restrained of his liberty is an inmate of a state benevolent or correctional institution, the location of which is fixed by statute and at the time is in the custody of the officers of the institution, no court or judge other than the courts or judges of the county in which the institution is located has jurisdiction to issue or determine a writ of habeas corpus for his production or discharge. Any writ issued by a court or judge of another county to an officer or person in charge at the state institution to compel the production or discharge of an inmate thereof is void.
{¶ 17} As noted in the findings of fact, Marion Correctional Institution is located in Marion County, Ohio. Relator filed his habeas corpus action here in Franklin County, Ohio. This court does not have jurisdiction to grant relator‘s request for a writ of habeas corpus.
{¶ 18} In State ex rel. Winnick v. Gansheimer, 112 Ohio St.3d 149, 2006-Ohio-6521, the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed whether or not a default judgment against the state was proper where the warden failed to file a timely response to the petition and determined that it was not, stating:
[T]he mere fact that the warden did not submit a timely response to the petition when ordered to do so did not entitle [the prisoner] to a default judgment granting the writ. Cf. State ex rel. Shimola v. Cleveland (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 110, 112, 637 N.E.2d 325, quoting
Civ.R. 55(D) (“a default judgment may be entered against the state only if the ‘claimant establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court’ “).
{¶ 19} Relator cannot establish his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to this court where his request for a writ of habeas corpus has been filed in a court which does not have jurisdiction to grant him the requested relief. Relator‘s motion for default judgment should be denied and for the same reasons, respondent‘s motion to dismiss should be granted.
/S/ MAGISTRATE
STEPHANIE BISCA