Title: Holloway v. Clermont Cty. Dept. of Human Serv.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Holloway v. Clermont Cty. Dept. of Human Serv., 92 Ohio 
St.3d 553, 2001-Ohio-1282] 
 
 
HOLLOWAY, APPELLANT, v. CLERMONT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN 
SERVICES ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as Holloway v. Clermont Cty. Dept. of Human Serv. (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 
553.] 
Juvenile law — Custody — Habeas corpus sought to regain custody of relator’s 
children — Dismissal of petition by court of appeals affirmed. 
(No. 01-420 — Submitted July 17, 2001 — Decided August 15, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Clermont County, No. CA2000-11-085. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Appellant, Sammye Holloway, is the biological mother of 
two minor children, T.J. and John.  On June 16, 1993, the Clermont County Court 
of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granted permanent custody of the children 
to appellee Clermont County Department of Human Services (“CCDHS”).  In 
February 1995, Holloway filed a motion in the juvenile court to set aside the June 
1993 award of permanent custody.  In August 1995, the juvenile court overruled 
Holloway’s motion. 
 
On appeal, however, the court of appeals reversed the juvenile court’s 
judgment because service by publication of CCDHS’s motion for permanent 
custody on Holloway was defective, i.e., it did not contain her last known address.  
The court of appeals further ordered that on remand, the juvenile court set aside 
its permanent custody order and “obtain proper service of process upon 
[Holloway] before conducting a hearing on the merits.” 
 
In 1996, Holloway filed a petition in the court of appeals for a writ of 
habeas corpus to regain the custody of her children.  In January 1997, the court of 
appeals denied the writ, finding that Holloway had an adequate legal remedy 
under the court’s previous remand order.  On appeal, we affirmed the denial of the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
writ.  Holloway v. Clermont Cty. Dept. of Human Serv. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 
128, 684 N.E.2d 1217. 
 
In 1999, Holloway filed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 
this court, which we dismissed.  Holloway v. Clermont Cty. Dept. of Human Serv. 
(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 1487, 716 N.E.2d 720. 
 
In November 2000, Holloway filed a third petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus, this time in the Court of Appeals for Clermont County.  Holloway named 
CCDHS and Patrick and Judy Trader, the custodians of the children, as 
respondents.  The entirety of her petition contained the following allegations: 
 
“1.  The petitioner is the natural mother of T.J. Holloway and John 
Holloway, minors. 
 
“2.  The petitioner is entitled to the custody of said T.J. Holloway and 
John Holloway. 
 
“3.  The above-named respondents have confined T.J. Holloway and John 
Holloway at said address and are unlawfully restraining their liberty and are 
unlawfully depriving petitioner of the custody to which she is entitled. 
 
“4.  The underlying order has been determined to be void [see attached]; 
and the Court has no jurisdiction to issue the order depriving the petitioner of 
custody.” 
 
Holloway attached to the petition copies of the August 1995 juvenile court 
judgment overruling Holloway’s motion to set aside the permanent custody order, 
the 1996 opinion of the court of appeals reversing the 1995 juvenile court 
judgment and remanding the cause to that court, the January 1997 court of appeals 
judgment denying Holloway’s first petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and our 
October 1997 judgment entry affirming the judgment of the court of appeals.  
Holloway also filed a motion for a stay of a November 3, 2000 probate court 
proceeding regarding the custody of the children. 
January Term, 2001 
3 
 
Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the petition, claiming that res judicata 
barred Holloway’s successive filing of habeas corpus petitions. 
 
In January 2001, the court of appeals granted appellees’ motion and 
dismissed the petition.  Although the appellate court determined that the 
underlying permanent custody award was void because Holloway was not 
properly served, it declined to speculate what effect this had on a 1994 adoption 
concerning the children and ruled that Holloway had an adequate legal remedy by 
filing a Civ.R. 60(B) motion with the probate court to vacate the adoption. 
 
In her appeal of right, Holloway asserts that the court of appeals erred in 
dismissing her habeas corpus petition.  For the following reasons, we affirm the 
judgment of the court of appeals. 
 
In order to avoid dismissal, Holloway was required to state with 
particularity the extraordinary circumstances entitling her to a writ of habeas 
corpus.  Chari v. Vore (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 328, 744 N.E.2d 763, 769.  
“Unsupported conclusions contained in a habeas corpus petition are not 
considered admitted and are insufficient to withstand dismissal.”  Id., citing State 
ex rel. Carrion v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 637, 638, 687 
N.E.2d 759, 760. 
 
Holloway’s petition contains unsupported conclusions, i.e., she is entitled 
to custody and the trial court lacks jurisdiction to deprive her of custody, rather 
than specific facts supporting her claim for extraordinary relief. 
 
Moreover, res judicata bars Holloway from filing successive habeas 
corpus petitions.  See State ex rel. Childs v. Lazaroff (2001), 90 Ohio St.3d 519, 
520-521, 739 N.E.2d 802, 803, and cases cited therein.  Although she claims that 
res judicata does not bar her third petition because it involves facts and 
circumstances that arose following her previous habeas corpus cases, she did not 
allege these additional facts and circumstances with the requisite particularity in 
her habeas corpus petition.  In fact, the allegations and attachments to her petition 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
merely restated the claims of her previous habeas corpus actions.  She did not 
incorporate the facts and allegations contained in her other filings, e.g., her 
motion to stay, in her petition, nor did she seek to amend her petition to include 
these facts. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals 
dismissing Holloway’s habeas corpus petition.  In so holding, we note that the 
underlying dispute has engendered a lengthy history of litigation in both state and 
federal courts.  See, e.g., Holloway v. Brush (C.A.6, 2000), 220 F.3d 767, 782-
784  (Clay, J., dissenting).  We agree with the Court of Appeals for Clermont 
County that the “best interest[s] of all involved, especially the children, will be 
served if this matter is ended as quickly as possible” and join that court in urging 
the parties to “use their best efforts to put an end to this matter with all reasonable 
speed.” 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
Donna S. Rose, for appellant. 
 
Donald W. White, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, and Elizabeth 
Mason, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee Clermont County 
Department of Human Services. 
__________________