Gaston v. Bauders , 2020 Ohio 2669 ( 2020 )

[Cite as Gaston v. Bauders, 2020-Ohio-2669.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF WAYNE )
NAOMI GASTON
Petitioner C.A. No. 20AP0001
v.
MAGISTRATE JERRY BAUDERS, ET ORIGINAL ACTION IN
AL. HABEAS CORPUS
RESPONDENTS
Dated: April 27, 2020
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Naomi Gaston has petitioned this Court for a writ of habeas corpus directed to
two Wayne County Court of Common Pleas Magistrates and Judge Corey Spitler. It appears that
Ms. Gaston’s petition focuses on child support orders and her past incarceration for failing to pay
support.
{¶2} For the following reasons, we dismiss the petition sua sponte. Sua sponte
dismissal of a petition, without notice, is appropriate only if the petition is frivolous or
the claimant obviously cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the petition. See, e.g., State
ex rel. Duran v. Kelsey, 106 Ohio St.3d 58, 2005-Ohio-3674, ¶ 7.
{¶3} Ms. Gaston filed a document captioned, in part, “PETITION NON-
STATUTORY WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.” In the first sentence of her petition, Ms.
Gaston alleged that she “is a victim of deprivation of property caused by a void judgment
crated in violation of due process * * *.” The next ten pages cite United States Supreme
C.A. No. 20AP0001
Page 2 of 4
Court decisions related to the federal writ of habeas corpus. The petition includes an
allegation that Ms. Gaston “serve[d] time in jail on numerous occasions on a civil matter.”
She added that she had been imprisoned due to unpaid child support. The complaint also
alleges that she has not had a trial by a jury of her peers or been compensated for her
property. She also alleged that the “judgment for child support is void because it was
issued by a person not a judge * * *.” We address her allegations below.
{¶4} First, Ms. Gaston has relied, in part, on the federal statute authorizing a
petition for writ of habeas corpus. This Court lacks authority to grant a federal writ of
habeas corpus. Section 3(B)(1), Article IV, of the Ohio Constitution grants this Court
original jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus. The requirements for the writ of
habeas corpus in Ohio are set forth in R.C. 2725.01 et seq.
{¶5} To be entitled to a State writ of habeas corpus, a party must show that she
is being unlawfully restrained of her liberty, R.C. 2725.01, and that she is entitled to
immediate release from prison or confinement. See, e.g., State ex rel. Cannon v. Mohr,
155 Ohio St.3d 213, 2018-Ohio-4184, ¶ 10. Ms. Gaston did not allege that she is currently
incarcerated and, if she is currently incarcerated, she failed to attach a copy of her
commitment papers, a defect that requires dismissal of her petition. See, e.g., State ex rel.
Norris v. Wainwright, 158 Ohio St.3d 20, 2019-Ohio-4138, ¶ 6.
{¶6} Ms. Gaston also did not name the person who has confined her, the place
of her confinement, or attach a copy of her commitment papers. R.C. 2725.04(B), (C),
and (D). The Ohio Supreme Court has held that because “‘commitment papers are
necessary for a complete understanding of the petition,’” the omission of commitment
C.A. No. 20AP0001
Page 3 of 4
papers is a fatal defect. Brown v. Rogers, 72 Ohio St.3d 339, 341 (1995), quoting Bloss
v. Rogers, 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 146 (1992). “When a petition is presented to a court that
does not comply with R.C. 2725.04(D), there is no showing of how the commitment was
procured and there is nothing before the court on which to make a determined judgment
except, of course, the bare allegations of petitioner’s application.” Brown at 341, quoting
Bloss at 146. Because Ms. Gaston’s petition did not include this required information,
her petition for writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed.
{¶7} Second, Ms. Gaston alleges that she has served time in jail in the past for
failing to pay child support. The writ of habeas corpus is not available to challenge past
incarceration. See, e.g., State ex rel. Hawkins v. Haas, 141 Ohio St.3d 98, 2014-Ohio-
5196, ¶ 4. Accordingly, she is not entitled to the writ of habeas corpus on this basis.
{¶8} Finally, she has alleged the trial court’s orders are void because she did not
have a trial by her peers and the order was issued by a person who is not a judge. Habeas
corpus is not available where there is an adequate remedy at law. See, e.g., Drake v.
Tyson-Parker, 101 Ohio St.3d 210, 2004-Ohio-711, ¶ 5. Ms. Gaston’s allegations give
rise to claims that could have been raised on appeal, so the writ of habeas corpus is not
available.
{¶9} Because Ms. Gaston did not comply with the statutory requirements for
filing a habeas corpus action, the case is dismissed. Costs taxed to Ms. Gaston.
C.A. No. 20AP0001
Page 4 of 4
{¶10} The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default
notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58.
LYNNE S. CALLAHAN
FOR THE COURT
SCHAFER, J.
TEODOSIO, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
NAOMI GASTON, Pro se, Petitioner.