Goldshtein v. Bradshaw ( 2012 )

[Cite as Goldshtein v. Bradshaw, 2012-Ohio-3548.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
FELIKS GOLDSHTEIN : JUDGES:
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
Petitioner : Hon. John W. Wise, J.
:
-vs- :
: CASE NO. 12CA32
MARGARET BRADSHAW, WARDEN :
:
: OPINION
Respondent :
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Habeas Corpus
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 27, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Petitioner: For Respondent:
Feliks Goldshtein #570541 Thelma Thomas Price
RICI Associate Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 8107 Criminal Justice Section
Mansfield, Ohio 44901 150 East Gay Street, 16th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Richland County, Case No. 12CA32 2
Delaney, P.J.
{¶1} Petitioner, Feliks Goldshtein, has filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus
alleging he is entitled to immediate release from incarceration because the trial
court denied his right to a “special bond.” Respondent has filed a motion to
dismiss arguing Petitioner has failed to comply with the procedural requirements
for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the petition should be dismissed as
successive, and the petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. We agree with Respondent for the following reasons.
{¶2} A writ of habeas corpus will lie in certain extraordinary circumstances
where there is an unlawful restraint of a person's liberty and there is no adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law. Howard v. Catholic Social Serv. of
Cuyahoga Cty., Inc. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 141, 144, 637 N.E.2d 890, 893.
Petitioner has filed at least eight petitions requesting the issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus. The Supreme Court has held that a petition should be dismissed
as successive where a claim has been or could have been raised in a prior
petition. State ex rel. Harsh v. Sheets, 2012 WL 1957882, 1 (Ohio, 2012).
According to the instant petition, Petitioner made his initial request for a “special
bond” at the time of sentencing, which was on October 27, 2010. Subsequent to
October 27, 2010, Petitioner admits he filed six of his eight petitions for habeas
corpus. We find the claim made in the current petition could have been raised in
a prior petition. For this reason, we find the current petition is barred as a
successive petition.
Richland County, Case No. 12CA32 3
{¶3} Further, the Supreme Court has held that dismissal for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted is permitted if, after all factual allegations
are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are made in petitioner’s favor, it
appears beyond doubt that he could prove no set of facts entitling him to the
requested extraordinary relief in habeas corpus. Keith v. Bobby, 117 Ohio St.3d
470, 2008-Ohio-1443, 884 N.E.2d 1067, ¶ 10.
{¶4} In his complaint, Petitioner solely relies on a Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure as the basis for his entitlement to a “special bond.” The Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure are inapplicable to a state criminal case. For this reason,
Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
{¶5} For these reasons, the Petition is dismissed.
By: Delaney, P.J.
Farmer, J. and
Wise, J. concur
____________________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
____________________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
____________________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
FELIKS GOLDSHTEIN : CASE NO. 12CA32
:
Petitioner :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
MARGARET BRADSHAW, WARDEN :
:
:
Respondent :
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, this
cause is dismissed.
Costs taxed to Petitioner.
______________________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
______________________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
______________________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE