Case Title: State ex rel. Peeples v. Anderson

Citation: 1995-Ohio-335

Docket Number: 19950525

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1995-08-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
The State ex rel. Peeples, Appellant, v. Anderson, Warden. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Peeples v. Anderson (1995),       Ohio St.3d            .] 
Mandamus to compel warden of correctional institution to order specific acts, 
including periodic testing of relator for HIV -- Writ denied, when. 
 
(No. 95-525 -- Submitted June 6, 1995 -- Decided August 30, 1995.) 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 95 CA 4. 
 
On February 8, 1995, appellant, Kavin Lee Peeples, an inmate at Mansfield 
Correctional Institution (“MCI”), filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for 
Richland County seeking a writ of mandamus against appellee, Warden Carl 
Anderson.  According to Peeples’s complaint, he was attacked by another inmate 
whom prison guards had failed to restrain.  As a result of the attack, Peeples was 
exposed to the inmate’s blood.  The other inmate had tested positive for the human 
immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”).  Peeples further alleged that prison officials 
denied his request for periodic HIV testing because he refused to make a statement 
that he is homosexual or had engaged in voluntary activities during which he 
could have contracted the virus.  
 
Peeples requested that the court of appeals grant a writ of mandamus 
compelling the warden to (1) periodically test Peeples for HIV, (2) monitor 
# 9315 
2
Peeples’s health on a regular basis, (3) investigate the incident involving his 
attack,  (4) report the incident to the “Public Health and Human Services,” and (5) 
impose adequate safeguards to prevent violent HIV-positive inmates from 
infecting other inmates. On the same date that he filed his mandamus action, 
Peeples filed an affidavit of indigency in which he alleged that he lacked money to 
secure the costs and expenses of prosecuting his complaint for a writ of 
mandamus.   
 
On February 23, 1995, the court of appeals sua sponte dismissed Peeples’s 
mandamus action and denied his request for funds to prosecute the cause.  The 
court of appeals subsequently overruled Peeples’s “motion to suspend cost due to 
indigency” on the basis that the case had already been dismissed.   
 
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
____________________ 
 
Kavin Lee Peeples, pro se. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In his first proposition of law, Peeples contends that federal 
constitutional rights to due process and prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment 
require prison officials to provide prisoners with medical tests which are 
# 9315 
3
reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis of infectious diseases where there is 
evidence of possible transmission during a prison altercation. 
 
While sua sponte dismissal of a complaint without notice is generally 
inappropriate, it is proper where the complaint is frivolous or the claimant 
obviously cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint.  See State ex rel. 
Edwards v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 106, 108,          
647 N.E.2d 799, 801, citing Baker v. Dir., U.S. Parole Comm. (C.A.D.C.1990), 
916 F.2d 725, and English v. Cowell (C.A.7, 1993), 10 F.3d 434. 
 
The court of appeals dismissed Peeples’s mandamus action on the sole basis 
that his complaint requested no relief.  The court’s rationale was erroneous 
because Peeples’s complaint manifestly requested a writ of mandamus compelling 
Warden Anderson to order specific acts, including periodic testing of Peeples for 
HIV.   
 
However, a reviewing court is not authorized to reverse a correct judgment 
merely because erroneous reasons were assigned as a basis thereof.  State ex rel. 
Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 217, 222, 
631 N.E.2d 150, 154.  A writ of mandamus will not be issued where there is a 
plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  R.C. 2731.05.  A 
# 9315 
4
civil rights action under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.Code constitutes an adequate 
legal remedy which precludes extraordinary relief where state prisoners challenge 
the conditions of their confinement and their claims are limited to alleged 
violation of their federal constitutional and statutory rights.  State ex rel. Carter v. 
Schotten (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 89, 91-92, 637 N.E.2d 306, 309.  Section 1983 
constitutes an adequate remedy, since it can provide declaratory, injunctive (both 
mandatory and prohibitive), and/or monetary relief.  1 Schwartz & Kirklin, Section 
1983 Litigation:  Claims, Defenses, and Fees (2 Ed.1991) 830, Section 16.1. 
 
Peeples challenged the conditions of his confinement.  He did not assert any 
violation of state law in his complaint.  In addition, Peeples claims only a 
deprivation of his federal constitutional rights now on appeal.  Further, Peeples 
has evidently already filed a complaint against the state and the Ohio Department 
of Rehabilitation and Correction in federal district court concerning related 
matters.  Therefore, since Peeples obviously could not prevail on the facts alleged 
in his complaint given the availability of a Section 1983 action, the court of 
appeals did not err in sua sponte dismissing the action.  The first proposition is 
overruled. 
# 9315 
5
 
Peeples asserts in his second proposition of law that the court of appeals 
violated his federal constitutional right of access to courts by assessing him $30 in 
costs for filing his complaint and barring him from filing another writ of 
mandamus in that court until he paid that amount.  Peeples claims that he is 
indigent.  However, the record does not indicate that the court of appeals ever 
ordered Peeples to pay the costs of the dismissed action, and there is also no 
evidence that the court of appeals prohibited him from filing another complaint.  
Since the record does not support Peeples’s allegations, his second proposition is 
meritless. 
 
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F. E. SWEENEY and COOK, JJ., concur. 
 
WRIGHT and PFEIFER, JJ., dissent. 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting.  I would grant Peeples’s writ of 
mandamus to compel the warden to periodically test Peeples for HIV.  
Peeples should not be forced to undergo a time-consuming and 
tortuous trip through the federal courts before learning whether he has 
been infected.  Prison staff and fellow inmates are other people who 
need Peeples to be tested.  Since time is of the essence, any remedy at 
# 9315 
6
law is inadequate. Peeples’s request is legitimate, inexpensive, and not 
burdensome on the state. 
WRIGHT, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.