Case Title: Perotti v. Stine

Citation: 2007-Ohio-1957

Docket Number: 20062359

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-05-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Perotti  v. Stine, 113 Ohio St.3d 312, 2007-Ohio-1957.] 
 
 
PEROTTI, APPELLANT, v. STINE, WARDEN, ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as Perotti v. Stine, 113 Ohio St.3d 312, 2007-Ohio-1957.] 
Common-law writs — Inmate in federal penitentiary — State court jurisdiction. 
(No. 2006-2359 ─ Submitted April 4, 2007 ─ Decided May 9, 2007.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 88732, 2006-Ohio-6464. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for writs of 
habeas corpus, coram nobis, and audita querela.  We affirm the judgment of the 
court of appeals. 
{¶ 2} In September 2006, appellant, John W. Perotti, an inmate in a 
federal prison in Kentucky, filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga 
County for writs of habeas corpus, coram nobis, or, in the alternative, audita 
querela.  See Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed.2004) 141 and 362, which defines 
“audita querela” as a “writ available to a judgment debtor who seeks a rehearing 
of a matter on grounds of newly discovered evidence or newly existing legal 
defenses” and “coram nobis” as a “writ of error directed to a court for review of 
its own judgment and predicated on alleged errors of fact.” 
{¶ 3} The Ohio Adult Parole Authority filed a motion to dismiss.  The 
court of appeals granted the motion and dismissed Perotti’s amended petition. 
{¶ 4} In his appeal as of right, Perotti asserts that the court of appeals 
erred in dismissing his petition.  For the following reasons, Perotti’s assertion 
lacks merit. 
{¶ 5} State courts lack jurisdiction to determine a habeas corpus petition 
filed by an inmate of a federal prison.  See, e.g., Ex Parte Bushnell (1858), 8 Ohio 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
St. 599, 601; Perotti v. Northeast Ohio Correctional Corp. Warden, Mahoning 
App. No. 05-MA-102, 2005-Ohio-3780, ¶ 4 (“this state court lacks jurisdiction to 
determine a habeas petition filed by an inmate of a facility housing federal 
prisoners”); State v. Goist, Trumbull App. No. 2002-T-0136, 2003-Ohio-3549, ¶ 
25 (state common pleas court lacked jurisdiction over federal inmate housed in 
another state); R.C. 2725.03. 
{¶ 6} Moreover, insofar as Perotti requests the writ for something other 
than release from prison, his claim lacks merit because in general, “habeas corpus 
is proper in the criminal context only if the petitioner is entitled to immediate 
release from prison or some other physical confinement.”  Scanlon v. Brunsman, 
112 Ohio St.3d 151, 2006-Ohio-6522, 858 N.E.2d 411, ¶ 4. 
{¶ 7} Finally, the common-law writs of coram nobis and audita querela 
are not part of the law of Ohio.  State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 180, 39 
O.O.2d 189, 226 N.E.2d 104 (writs of coram nobis or coram vobis are “no part of 
the law of Ohio”); Rowland v. Finkel (1987), 33 Ohio App.3d 77, 78-79, 514 
N.E.2d 949. 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
John W. Perotti, pro se. 
 
Marc Dann, Attorney General, and Diane Mallory, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee Ohio Adult Parole Authority. 
______________________