Title: Plaza v. Black

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Plaza v. Black, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-853.] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 2024-OHIO-853 
PLAZA, APPELLANT, v. BLACK, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Plaza v. Black, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-853.] 
Habeas corpus—Parole revocation—Appellant’s petition failed to state with 
sufficient specificity facts that would entitle him to habeas relief—Court of 
appeals’ judgment granting warden’s motion to dismiss affirmed. 
(No. 2023-0762—Submitted December 12, 2023—Decided March 12, 2024.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, 
No. 22CA011932, 2023-Ohio-1787. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Robert Plaza, who is serving an indeterminate prison 
sentence of ten years to life at the Grafton Correctional Institution (“GCI”), appeals 
the judgment of the Ninth District Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a 
writ of habeas corpus against appellee, Jennifer Black, the warden of the Lorain 
Correctional Institution (“LCI”).  Plaza argued, among other things, that he was 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
denied a preliminary hearing to determine whether there was probable cause to 
believe that he had violated the conditions of his parole, that he was denied due 
process of law, and that he was entitled to immediate release from prison.  The 
Ninth District granted the warden’s motion to dismiss.  Plaza has appealed as of 
right.  We affirm the lower court’s judgment, but we do so on alternative grounds. 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
{¶ 2} In December 2022, Plaza was incarcerated at LCI in Lorain County 
for convictions arising out of multiple cases in Cuyahoga County in 2003.  Plaza 
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for Lorain 
County, which falls within the Ninth Appellate District.  His petition alleged several 
claims stemming from the Adult Parole Authority’s (“APA”) decision to revoke his 
parole in June 2022.  In January 2023, the warden filed a motion to dismiss Plaza’s 
petition under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). 
{¶ 3} In March 2023, while his petition was still pending, Plaza filed with 
the court of appeals a notice of change of address indicating that he had been 
transferred to the Richland Correctional Institution (“RCI”) in Richland County, 
which falls within Ohio’s Fifth Appellate District.  Then, on May 22, the court of 
appeals docketed Plaza’s second notice of change of address, which stated that 
Plaza had been transferred to GCI, a facility located in Lorain County.  Just over a 
week later, the Ninth District issued its opinion, dismissing Plaza’s petition for lack 
of territorial jurisdiction.  2023-Ohio-1787, ¶ 5.  Specifically, the court cited Plaza’s 
first notice of change of address and explained that “Mr. Plaza is no longer 
incarcerated in Lorain County in the territorial jurisdiction of the Lorain County 
Court of Appeals.”  Id. at ¶ 3.  The court of appeals made no mention of Plaza’s 
second notice of change of address. 
ANALYSIS 
{¶ 4} To be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, Plaza “must show that he is 
being unlawfully restrained of his liberty and that he is entitled to immediate release 
January Term, 2024 
 
3 
from prison or confinement.”  State ex rel. Ellison v. Black, 165 Ohio St.3d 310, 
2021-Ohio-3154, 178 N.E.3d 508, ¶ 9, citing R.C. 2725.01 and State ex rel. Cannon 
v. Mohr, 155 Ohio St.3d 213, 2018-Ohio-4184, 120 N.E.3d 776, ¶ 10.  We review 
de novo a decision granting a motion to dismiss a habeas petition under Civ.R. 
12(B)(6).  State ex rel. Slaughter v. Foley, 166 Ohio St.3d 222, 2021-Ohio-4049, 
184 N.E.3d 87, ¶ 8. 
{¶ 5} The court of appeals dismissed Plaza’s petition based on R.C. 
2725.03, which states: 
 
If a person restrained of his liberty is an inmate of a state  
* * * correctional institution, the location of which is fixed by statute 
and at the time is in the custody of the officers of the institution, no 
court or judge other than the courts or judges of the county in which 
the institution is located has jurisdiction to issue or determine a writ 
of habeas corpus for his production or discharge. 
 
{¶ 6} We have strictly construed the rule regarding territorial jurisdiction 
and have dismissed noncomplying habeas corpus petitions.  See, e.g., Brown v. 
Hall, 123 Ohio St.3d 381, 2009-Ohio-5592, 916 N.E.2d 807, ¶ 1 (holding that “even 
though [the habeas] petition reached the same district court of appeals it would have 
had it been filed in the correct county, the court of appeals still lacked jurisdiction 
to determine the merits”); Goudlock v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 398, 2008-Ohio-
4787, 894 N.E.2d 692, ¶ 17 (affirming ruling dismissing habeas corpus petition that 
was filed in a county in the correct appellate district but not in the county where the 
inmate was housed). 
{¶ 7} Plaza, however, argues that because he was transferred back to GCI 
in Lorain County before the court of appeals disposed of his habeas petition, the 
court erred when it dismissed his petition based on R.C. 2725.03.  Plaza reasons 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
that his brief incarceration at RCI, which falls within the Fifth Appellate District 
instead of the Ninth Appellate District, did not defeat the court’s jurisdiction over 
his petition. 
{¶ 8} Plaza’s argument has merit.  When Plaza filed his petition, he was 
incarcerated at LCI in Lorain County; therefore, he correctly filed his petition in 
the Court of Appeals for Lorain County in the Ninth Appellate District.  And 
because Plaza was incarcerated at GCI, also located in Lorain County, when the 
court “determine[d] [his] writ of habeas corpus,” R.C. 2725.03, its dismissal on the 
ground of territorial jurisdiction was incorrect.  To be sure, the warden’s brief 
acknowledges that “the lower court appears to have possessed both territorial 
jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction,” but nonetheless, the warden urges this court 
to affirm based on alternative grounds relating to Plaza’s choice to pursue habeas 
relief rather than a writ of mandamus. 
{¶ 9} We find the warden’s argument persuasive.  Despite the court of 
appeals’ error, in reviewing the petition de novo, we conclude that Plaza’s 
allegations do not state a claim cognizable in habeas corpus.  We have held that in 
the context of parole revocation, “habeas corpus will lie as a remedy for a due-
process violation only in ‘extreme circumstances involving unreasonable delay.’ ”  
Ellison, 165 Ohio St.3d 310, 2021-Ohio-3154, 178 N.E.3d 508, at ¶ 13, quoting 
Scarberry v. Turner, 139 Ohio St.3d 111, 2014-Ohio-1587, 9 N.E.3d 1022, ¶ 14. 
{¶ 10} Foreclosing relief in habeas corpus here, Plaza’s petition alleges that 
he was entitled to a “preliminary probable cause hearing” upon his reincarceration, 
that the APA improperly “treat[ed] the conditions of supervision as a strict liability 
offense,” that the APA’s use of a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard is an 
inadequate burden of proof, that his violation was not supported by a preponderance 
of the evidence, and that the APA’s five-year sanction is fundamentally unfair and 
therefore beyond the scope of its authority and jurisdiction.  Thus, the crux of each 
of Plaza’s arguments is that the manner in which the parole-revocation procedures 
January Term, 2024 
 
5 
were conducted violated his right to due process.  But generally speaking, “the sole 
remedy for such a violation * * * is a writ of mandamus compelling the parole 
authority to conduct a second hearing.”  Ellison at ¶ 12.  Moreover, Plaza concedes, 
“I have not raised an unreasonable delay with my parole hearing.”  
{¶ 11} Plaza’s petition fails to state with sufficient specificity facts that 
would entitle him to habeas corpus relief, and we hold that the court of appeals 
properly dismissed the petition, despite its erroneous rationale. 
CONCLUSION 
{¶ 12} The Ninth District Court of Appeals’ judgment dismissing Plaza’s 
petition for a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, 
and DETERS, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Robert Plaza, pro se. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Jerri L. Fosnaught, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
_________________