Title: State ex rel. Freshour v. State

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
[The State ex rel.] Freshour, Appellant, v. The State of Ohio,                   
Appellee.                                                                        
[Cite as State ex rel. Freshour v. State (1994),        Ohio                     
St.3d      .]                                                                    
Appellate procedure -- Action to compel refiling of three cases                  
     so that they could be reconsidered by the court of common                   
     pleas -- Court of appeals' dismissal of action on basis                     
     that action fails to state a claim upon which relief can                    
     be granted affirmed, when.                                                  
     (No. 94-345 -- Submitted April 5, 1994 -- Decided June 22,                  
1994.)                                                                           
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County, No.                   
93CA27.                                                                          
     On September 15, 1993, relator-appellant, Paul L.                           
Freshour, an inmate at Ross Correctional Camp ("RCC"), filed an                  
untitled motion in the Pickaway County Court of Appeals which                    
named the state of Ohio as "[a]ppellee."  Freshour requested an                  
order to "remand" Freshour v. Ammer (Oct. 21, 1989), Pickaway                    
App. No. 88CA39, unreported, Freshour v. Carroll (Aug. 17,                       
1989), Pickaway App. No. 88CA34, unreported, and Freshour v.                     
Tate (Oct. 17, 1990), Ross App. No. 1705, unreported, to the                     
"Lower Court" to allow for "new filings," without any                            
double-jeopardy bar.  The court of appeals granted the state's                   
Civ.R. 12(E) motion for a more definite statement and ordered                    
Freshour to file an "amended petition" which stated a claim                      
upon which relief can be granted or the action would be                          
dismissed.  Freshour subsequently filed an amended petition                      
which again requested that the appellate court remand the cases                  
previously set forth because a "legal notice" sent by the                        
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio                   
in case No. C-2-89-0762 indicated that inmates at RCC had not                    
been provided an adequate law library and were not provided                      
with assistance from persons trained in the law.  On January                     
14, 1994, the court of appeals dismissed Freshour's action on                    
the basis that he had failed to state a claim upon which relief                  
can be granted.                                                                  
     This cause is before the court upon an appeal as of right.                  
                                                                                 
     Paul L. Freshour, pro se.                                                   
     P. Randall Knece, Pickaway County Prosecuting Attorney,                     
for appellee.                                                                    
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  Freshour asserts that the court of appeals                     
erred in dismissing his amended petition.  Although it is not                    
entirely clear from his pleadings or his argument on appeal, it                  
appears that Freshour sought relief similar to a writ of                         
mandamus to compel refiling of three of his numerous cases so                    
that they could be reconsidered by the court of common pleas.                    
In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a relator must                    
establish that relator has a clear legal right to the relief                     
prayed for, that respondent is under a clear legal duty to                       
perform the requested act, and that relator has no plain and                     
adequate remedy at law.  State ex rel. Kuczak v. Saffold                         
(1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 123, 125, 616 N.E.2d 230, 232.                             
     Although Freshour claims that the "legal notice" sent by                    
the district court is tantamount to a court determination that                   
he was denied his constitutional right to, inter alia, an                        
adequate prison law library, the notice merely indicates a                       
proposed settlement of a federal class action lawsuit in which                   
one of the claims related to the inadequacy of the prison law                    
library.  The notice attached to Freshour's original untitled                    
filing did not indicate that such claim was admitted or that                     
the district court approved the proposed settlement.                             
     Second, as the state notes, Freshour does not allege that                   
the new filings would result in a reasonable probability of a                    
different outcome in any of the subject cases.  Indeed, the                      
cases which Freshour wanted remanded involved a civil slander                    
suit against the common pleas court judge who presided over his                  
criminal trial (Freshour v. Ammer), an action alleging a                         
violation of his constitutional right to medical treatment                       
(Freshour v. Carroll), and a habeas corpus action.  (Freshour                    
v. Tate).  Freshour's response to the state's motion for a more                  
definite statement essentially ignored the cases sought to be                    
remanded, instead claiming that errors occurred in his original                  
criminal trial in which he was represented by counsel.  See,                     
generally, State v. Freshour (Mar. 19, 1986), Pickaway App. No.                  
83CA32, unreported (affirmance of his criminal conviction and                    
sentence).  Further, Freshour v. Tate, supra, could not be                       
"remanded" to the common pleas court because it was a habeas                     
corpus case which originated in the court of appeals.  See                       
Freshour v. Tate (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 410, 583 N.E.2d 1304                      
(appeal as of right from dismissal of habeas corpus petition).                   
     Finally, Freshour cites no authority for his implicit                       
proposition that any alleged finding of inadequacy of a prison                   
law library automatically entitles inmates whose cases have                      
since terminated to refile those actions and have them                           
considered on the merits without any showing of prejudice.                       
Constitutional violations are not always presumptively                           
prejudicial.  See, e.g., State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d                  
136, 538 N.E.2d 373, paragraphs two and three of the syllabus,                   
regarding ineffective assistance of counsel.                                     
     In sum, Freshour failed to comply with the court of                         
appeals' order when he filed an amended petition which failed                    
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.                               
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the                      
court of appeals is affirmed.                                                    
                                    Judgment affirmed.                           
     Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright,  Resnick, F.E.                  
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.