Title: State ex rel. Hogan v. Ghee

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

THE STATE EX REL. HOGAN, APPELLANT, v. GHEE, CHAIRPERSON, OHIO ADULT 
PAROLE AUTHORITY, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Hogan v. Ghee (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Mandamus to compel Chairperson of Ohio Adult Parole Authority either to 
release relator from prison on parole or provide him with a new parole 
release hearing — Complaint dismissed, when. 
(No. 98-2096 — Submitted February 9, 1999 — Decided March 31, 1999.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 98AP-595. 
 
In 1998, appellant, Robert Hogan, an inmate at North Central Correctional 
Institution in Marion, Ohio, filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Franklin 
County for a writ of mandamus against appellee, Margarette T. Ghee, Chairperson 
of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (“APA”).  According to Hogan, at the time he 
filed the complaint, he had served approximately seven years of an aggregate 
prison term of three-to-fifteen years for convictions of burglary, theft, and drug 
abuse.  Hogan claimed that at a 1996 parole hearing, the APA mentioned his 
pending lawsuit against two correctional officers and his prison warden and then 
denied his parole.  Although his complaint is not entirely clear, Hogan apparently 
requested a writ of mandamus to compel Ghee either to release him from prison on 
parole or provide him with a new parole release hearing. 
 
Hogan subsequently moved for a declaratory judgment in the case.  In his 
motion, Hogan asserted that Ghee and the APA’s alleged unlawful retaliation and 
discrimination against him by denying parole was cognizable as a federal civil 
rights action under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.Code. Ghee filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) 
motion to dismiss Hogan’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief 
can be granted. 
 
2
 
The court of appeals granted Ghee’s motion and dismissed Hogan’s 
mandamus action.  The court of appeals also denied Hogan’s motion for a 
declaratory judgment. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Robert Hogan, pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Kevin V. Simon, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Hogan asserts in his propositions of law that the court of 
appeals erred in dismissing his mandamus action and denying his motion for 
declaratory judgment.  For the following reasons, Hogan’s assertions lack merit. 
 
First, to the extent that Hogan claimed that he was entitled to be released 
from prison, habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, was the proper action.  State ex 
rel. Johnson v. Bettman (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 61, 701 N.E.2d 994, 995. 
 
Second, “ ‘[t]here is no constitutional or inherent right  * * * to be 
conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence.’ ”  State ex rel. 
Hattie v. Goldhardt (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 123, 125, 630 N.E.2d 696, 698, quoting 
Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex (1979), 442 
U.S. 1, 7, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2104, 60 L.Ed.2d 668, 675.  Hogan consequently had no 
right to be released before the expiration of his sentence. 
 
Third, Hogan has an adequate legal remedy by filing a Section 1983 federal 
civil rights action in either federal district court or state common pleas court to 
raise his claim that Ghee and the APA denied his parole in retaliation for his 
litigation against prison officials.  See State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins 
(1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 447, 449-450, 663 N.E.2d 639, 642; State ex rel. Peeples v. 
 
3
Anderson (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 559, 560-561, 653 N.E.2d 371, 373; see, also, 
Johnson v. Rodriguez (C.A.5, 1997), 110 F.3d 299.  Here, Hogan essentially 
conceded that Section 1983 provided an adequate legal remedy for his claims.  Cf. 
Hattie v. Anderson (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 232, 626 N.E.2d 67. 
 
Finally, the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over Hogan’s declaratory 
judgment motion.  Wright v. Ghee (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 465, 466, 659 N.E.2d 
1261, 1262; State ex rel. Natl. Electrical Contractors Assn. v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. 
Serv. (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 179, 180-181, 699 N.E.2d 64, 66; Section 3(B)(1), 
Article IV, Ohio Constitution. 
 
Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed Hogan’s 
mandamus action.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.