Title: State ex rel. Alford v. Adult Parole Authority

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Alford v. Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-8773.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2017-OHIO-8773 
THE STATE EX REL. ALFORD, APPELLANT, v. ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY, 
APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Alford v. Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion No. 
2017-Ohio-8773.] 
Mandamus—Writ of mandamus sought to compel release on ground that a hearing 
on the violation of his parole was not timely held—Claim barred by res 
judicata because it had been raised in a prior habeas corpus action—
Dismissal of petition for writ affirmed. 
(No. 2016-1316—Submitted June 6, 2017—Decided December 5, 2017.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Warren County, 
No. CA2015-11-104. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals 
dismissing the petition of appellant, Brian K. Alford, for a writ of mandamus. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} On November 17, 2015, Alford filed a petition for a writ of mandamus 
arguing that he is entitled to be released “from custody under the same terms and 
agreement as his original parole” because appellee, the Ohio Adult Parole Authority 
(“APA”), failed to hold a hearing to determine whether he had violated the terms 
of his release within a reasonable time.  He also argued that by denying him counsel 
for his release-violation hearing, the APA impaired his ability to defend against the 
charges at his hearing. 
{¶ 3} On August 16, 2016, the court of appeals granted the APA’s motion 
for summary judgment, finding that “the delay from the time that [Alford] violated 
his parole until he was declared to be a parole violator was not unreasonable.”  The 
court further noted that Alford had raised the same arguments in a state habeas 
corpus action in the Warren County Court of Common Pleas and thus that his 
“claims in this action are therefore barred by res judicata and/or collateral estoppel.”  
We affirm. 
{¶ 4} The court of appeals correctly held that Alford’s mandamus claim is 
barred by res judicata.  “A valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all 
subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or 
occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.”  Grava v. Parkman 
Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226 (1995), paragraph one of the syllabus. 
{¶ 5} The mandamus petition that is the subject of this appeal is but the most 
recent action Alford has filed alleging that the APA denied him a release-violation 
hearing within a reasonable time and claiming that he is entitled to release under 
the same terms and agreement as his original parole.  In December 2011, Alford 
sought a writ of habeas corpus in federal court and raised the same claims.  Alford 
v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst., S.D.Ohio No. 1:11-cv-862, 2013 WL 434050 (Feb. 
5, 2013). 
{¶ 6} And in July 2015, Alford filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 
against the warden of Warren Correctional Institution in the Warren County Court 
January Term, 2017 
 
3
of Common Pleas.  His claim for relief was the same:  “[APA]’s failure to hold a 
parole revocation hearing during this time created an unreasonable delay that 
violated his due process rights and required his immediate release * * *.”  Alford v. 
Crutchfield, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2016-03-021, 2016-Ohio-7295, ¶ 7.  The 
common pleas court granted the warden’s motion for summary judgment, and the 
Twelfth District affirmed.  Id. at ¶ 26, appeal not accepted, 148 Ohio St.3d 1445, 
2017-Ohio-1427, 72 N.E.3d 658. 
{¶ 7} Alford’s mandamus claim arises “from a nucleus of facts that was the 
subject matter” of previous legal actions.  Grava, 73 Ohio St.3d at 383, 653 N.E.2d 
226.  As such, Alford’s mandamus petition is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 
{¶ 8} Further, we deny the motion for declaratory judgment that Alford 
filed in this appeal.  A declaratory-judgment action is a “distinct proceeding 
generally initiated by the filing of a complaint,” and a “ ‘motion’ for a declaratory 
judgment is procedurally incorrect and inadequate to invoke the jurisdiction of the 
court pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2721.”  Fuller v. German Motor Sales, Inc., 51 Ohio 
App.3d 101, 103, 554 N.E.2d 139 (1st Dist.1988); see Civ.R. 57 (“The procedure 
for obtaining a declaratory judgment pursuant to Sections 2721.01 to 2721.15, 
inclusive, of the Revised Code, shall be in accordance with these rules”).  Alford’s 
motion is also improper because the sole issue presented in this case is whether the 
court of appeals erred in dismissing his mandamus petition, and Alford’s claims 
(which are raised anew in the motion for declaratory judgment) have been fully 
briefed.  We also deny the APA’s motion to strike the application for declaratory 
judgment as moot.  Finally, we deny Alford’s requests for a copy of the motion to 
strike and for an extension of time to file a reply in opposition to the motion as 
moot. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER, 
and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
_________________ 
Brian K. Alford, pro se. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Kelly N. Brogan, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
_________________