State ex rel. Miller v. Bradshaw , 2016 Ohio 5033 ( 2016 )

[Cite as State ex rel. Miller v. Bradshaw, 2016-Ohio-5033.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., : JUDGES:
JERRY MILLER : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J.
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Petitioner : Hon. John W. Wise, J.
:
-vs- :
:
MARGARET A. BRADSHAW, : Case No. 15CA110
:
Respondent : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Habeas Corpus
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: July 18, 2016
APPEARANCES:
For Petitioner For Respondent
JERRY MILLER, Pros Se MICHAEL DeWINE
Inmate No. a487-391 Attorney General of Ohio
Richland Correctinal Institution By: JERRI L. FOSNAUGHT
P. O. Box 8107 Assistant Attorney General
Mansfield, OH 44901 150 East Gay Street, 16th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Richland County, Case No. 15CA110 2
Farmer, J.
{¶1} Jerry Miller has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus alleging he is
entitled to immediate release from prison because his sentences have expired.
Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. Both parties have also filed other dispositive motions which are denied
based upon our resolution in this case.
{¶2} Petitioner argues we should deny the motion to dismiss because the motion
was untimely filed. Even if we disregard the motion filed by Respondent, this Court can
sua sponte dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. “[S]ua
sponte dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
is appropriate if the complaint is frivolous or the claimant obviously cannot prevail on the
facts alleged in the complaint. State ex rel. Thompson v. Spon, 83 Ohio St.3d 551, 553,
1998–Ohio–298; State ex rel. Bruggeman v. Ingraham, 87 Ohio St.3d 230, 231, 1999–
Ohio–27.
{¶3} This is Petitioner’s third habeas corpus petition filed since he was
incarcerated in 2005. In the first two petitions, arguments similar to those in the instant
petition were raised asserting Petitioner’s sentences had expired for various reasons.
{¶4} The Supreme Court has held, “When a petitioner has filed a previous
habeas corpus action, the doctrine of res judicata prevents the petitioner from raising an
issue in a successive habeas petition that the petitioner raised in the previous habeas
action. Hudlin v. Alexander, 63 Ohio St.3d 153, 586 N.E.2d 86 (1992).” Jefferson v.
Bunting, 2016-Ohio-614, ¶ 5 (Ohio).
Richland County, Case No. 15CA110 3
{¶5} Petitioner has raised the same or similar claims in the two prior petitions.
Petitioner could have raised in the prior petition(s), and did at least to some degree, the
same claims raised in the instant petition. Therefore, the claims raised in the petition
before us are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. For this reason, the petition is
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
By Farmer, P.J.
Hoffman, J. and
Wise, J. concur.
SGF/as 622