Case Title: Waites v. Gansheimer

Citation: 2006-Ohio-4358

Docket Number: 20060753

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-09-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Waites v. Gansheimer, 110 Ohio St.3d 250, 2006-Ohio-4358.] 
 
 
WAITES, APPELLANT, v. GANSHEIMER, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Waites v. Gansheimer, 110 Ohio St.3d 250, 2006-Ohio-4358.] 
Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus – Habeas corpus 
is not available to challenge the conditions of confinement – Failure to 
attach pertinent commitment papers – Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2006-0753 ─ Submitted July 18, 2006 ─ Decided September 6, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ashtabula County, 
No. 2006-A-0003, 2006-Ohio-1702. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ 
of habeas corpus. 
{¶ 2} In January 1993, appellant, James S. Waites, was convicted of 
several crimes, including kidnapping and felonious sexual penetration, and was 
sentenced to prison. 
{¶ 3} On January 17, 2006, Waites filed a petition in the Court of 
Appeals for Ashtabula County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, 
Lake Erie Correctional Institution Warden Rich Gansheimer, to release him from 
prison.  Waites claimed that the warden had failed to provide reasonable medical 
care for his various medical conditions and that this deliberate indifference 
constituted cruel and unusual punishment.  The warden filed a motion to dismiss 
the petition.  On March 31, 2006, the court of appeals granted the warden’s 
motion and dismissed the petition. 
{¶ 4} In his appeal as of right, Waites asserts that the court of appeals 
erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition because the writ is mandatory when 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
cruel and unusual punishment is established and because a petition cannot be 
dismissed without an evidentiary hearing. 
{¶ 5} For the following reasons, Waites’s claims lack merit. 
{¶ 6} As the court of appeals correctly held, “state 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.”  Douglas v. Money (1999), 85 
Ohio St.3d 348, 349, 708 N.E.2d 697, citing State ex rel. Carter v. Schotten 
(1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 89, 637 N.E.2d 306; see, also, State ex rel. Bruni v. 
Leonard (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 475, 476, 687 N.E.2d 441 (“Bruni possessed an 
adequate legal remedy by way of a federal civil rights action under Section 1983, 
Title 42, U.S.Code, to raise his Eighth Amendment claim”).  The United States 
Supreme Court has recognized that deliberate indifference to serious medical 
needs of prisoners is proscribed by the Eighth Amendment to the United States 
Constitution and states a cause of action under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.Code.  
Estelle v. Gamble (1976), 429 U.S. 97, 104-105, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251; 
see, also, Williams v. Terrebonne Parish Sheriff’s Office (E.D.La.2006), No. 
Civ.A. 04-1173, 2006 WL 622777, * 4 (Section 1983 permits recovery for serious 
physical harm to prisoner caused intentionally or with deliberate indifference in 
provision of medical care). 
{¶ 7} Moreover, Waites’s petition is fatally defective and subject to 
dismissal because he did not attach all of his pertinent commitment papers.  R.C. 
2725.04(D); State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (2002), 95 
Ohio St.3d 70, 71, 765 N.E.2d 356.  Waites attached a sentencing entry for case 
No. 92-CR-000497, but he failed to attach one for case No. 92-CR-000367, which 
is referred to in the sentencing entry that he did attach.  We recently affirmed the 
dismissal of a habeas corpus petition for a substantially similar defect.  Harris v. 
Anderson, 109 Ohio St.3d 101, 2006-Ohio-1934, 846 N.E.2d 43, ¶ 10. 
January Term, 2006 
3 
{¶ 8} Finally, no evidentiary hearing was required.  “R.C. Chapter 2725 
prescribes a basic, summary procedure for bringing a habeas corpus action.”  
Chari v. Vore (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 327, 744 N.E.2d 763.  “Even when a 
writ is allowed and a return is ordered, an evidentiary hearing, discovery, and 
physical presence of the petitioner are not always required.”  Id.  Here, Waites’s 
petition was properly dismissed because it was fatally defective for failure to 
comply with R.C. 2725.04(D) and it failed to state a claim cognizable in habeas 
corpus. 
{¶ 9} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
James S. Waites, pro se. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Diane Mallory, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
______________________