Title: Brooks v. Kelly

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Brooks v. Kelly, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2805.] 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-2805 
BROOKS, APPELLANT, v. KELLY, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Brooks v. Kelly, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2805.] 
Habeas corpus—Res judicata—Court of appeals’ granting of summary judgment 
in favor of warden affirmed. 
(No. 2014-1606—Submitted February 3, 2015—Decided July 14, 2015.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No. 14CA010562. 
_____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Petitioner-appellant, Dwayne Brooks, filed a petition for a writ of 
habeas corpus in the Ninth District Court of Appeals.  The court of appeals 
granted summary judgment in favor of respondent-appellee, Bennie Kelly, 
because Brooks’s claims are res judicata.  We affirm. 
Facts 
{¶ 2} Brooks is a prisoner at Grafton Correctional Institution, and Kelly is 
the warden.  Brooks was convicted of aggravated murder and other crimes and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
was sentenced in 1989 to 20 years to life on the murder count and 5 to 25 years 
each on three other counts, which were to be served concurrently to one another 
but consecutively to the 20-to-life sentence.  The judgment of conviction was 
affirmed on direct appeal, and we declined to accept jurisdiction over Brooks’s 
appeal from the court of appeals’ judgment.  8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 57034, 1991 
WL 1494 (Jan. 10, 1991); 63 Ohio St.3d 1406, 585 N.E.2d 428 (1992). 
{¶ 3} Brooks filed this original action on March 31, 2014, in the Ninth 
District Court of Appeals.  He claimed that his minimum term of imprisonment 
expired in 2005, and indeed, the parole board held a hearing in 2005, denied him 
parole and set the next parole-hearing date.  However, the board later determined 
that it should not have held a parole hearing in 2005 because Brooks had not yet 
served his minimum sentence at that time.  It therefore vacated its 2005 decision 
and continued his parole eligibility to 2015.  Brooks claims that the parole board 
violated his due-process rights by vacating the 2005 decision. 
{¶ 4} Kelly filed a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and/or for 
summary judgment under Civ.R. 56(C), and Brooks filed a motion to strike 
Kelly’s pleading, arguing that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply in habeas 
corpus actions.  The court of appeals issued an order on August 15, 2014, denying 
the motion to strike and granting the motion for summary judgment.  The case is 
before us on Brooks’s appeal from that judgment. 
Analysis 
{¶ 5} Brooks argues that the court of appeals erred in granting summary 
judgment in favor of the warden under Civ.R. 56(C) because, he asserts, the Rules 
of Civil Procedure do not apply in habeas corpus cases.  Specifically, he states 
that the court of appeals should have decided the case under R.C. Chapter 2725, 
rather than under Civ.R. 56(C).  He also claims that the court of appeals erred in 
holding that res judicata bars this action. 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
{¶ 6} The Rules of Civil Procedure are generally applicable in original 
actions for extraordinary writs, including habeas corpus actions.  State ex rel. 
Sautter v. Grey, 117 Ohio St.3d 465, 2008-Ohio-1444, 884 N.E.2d 1062, ¶ 11, 
citing State ex rel. Ahmed v. Costine, 99 Ohio St.3d 212, 2003-Ohio-3080, 790 
N.E.2d 330, ¶ 5, fn. 1 (prohibition and mandamus claims) and Gaskins v. 
Shiplevy, 74 Ohio St.3d 149, 150, 656 N.E.2d 1282 (1995) (habeas corpus 
claims).  The court of appeals did not err by ruling on Kelly’s motion for 
summary judgment under the Rules of Civil Procedure. 
{¶ 7} The court of appeals also properly granted summary judgment to the 
warden based on res judicata.  The doctrine of res judicata involves both claim 
preclusion (historically called estoppel by judgment in Ohio) and issue preclusion 
(traditionally known as collateral estoppel). Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio 
St.3d 379, 381, 653 N.E.2d 226 (1995), citing Whitehead v. Gen. Tel. Co., 20 
Ohio St.2d 108, 254 N.E.2d 10 (1969) and Krahn v. Kinney, 43 Ohio St.3d 103, 
107, 538 N.E.2d 1058, (1989).  With regard to claim preclusion, a final judgment 
or decree rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is a complete 
bar to any subsequent action on the same claim between the same parties or those 
in privity with them.  Id., citing Norwood v. McDonald, 142 Ohio St. 299, 52 
N.E.2d 67 (1943), paragraph one of the syllabus, and Whitehead, paragraph one 
of the syllabus.  Moreover, an existing final judgment or decree between the 
parties is conclusive as to all claims that were or might have been litigated in a 
first lawsuit.  Id. at 382, citing Natl. Amusements, Inc. v. Springdale, 53 Ohio 
St.3d 60, 62, 558 N.E.2d 1178 (1990).  “ ‘The doctrine of res judicata requires a 
plaintiff to present every ground for relief in the first action, or be forever barred 
from asserting it.’ ”  Id. at 382, quoting Natl. Amusements at 62. 
{¶ 8} Brooks has filed several actions prior to this one, including an action 
in habeas corpus in this court in 2013.  In that case, his complaint not only 
brought up the same issues, it is virtually identical to the complaint in this case.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
We dismissed that complaint.  His claims are therefore res judicata, and the court 
of appeals was correct to grant summary judgment in this case. 
{¶ 9} Moreover, even if we could reach the merits of Brooks’s arguments, 
he has not shown that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief.  In general, habeas 
corpus is proper in the criminal context only if the petitioner is entitled to 
immediate release from prison or some other physical confinement. Scanlon v. 
Brunsman, 112 Ohio St.3d 151, 2006-Ohio-6522, 858 N.E.2d 411, ¶ 4, citing 
Crase v. Bradshaw, 108 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio-663, 842 N.E.2d 513, ¶ 5, 
and State ex rel. Smirnoff v. Greene, 84 Ohio St.3d 165, 167, 702 N.E.2d 423 
(1998).  Even if Brooks’s argument is correct that his minimum term was 
incorrectly calculated and his first parole-hearing determination was improperly 
vacated, he is not entitled to immediate release, because he has not served his 
maximum term of life.  State ex rel. Abercrombie v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of 
Common Pleas, 114 Ohio St.3d 64, 2014-Ohio-4768, 21 N.E.3d 316, ¶ 8 
(“Habeas corpus relief is not available to a prisoner who has not served his 
maximum sentence”); State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 95 
Ohio St.3d 70, 71, 765 N.E.2d 356 (2002). 
{¶ 10} The court of appeals correctly granted summary judgment to the 
warden. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_____________________ 
 
Dwayne Brooks, pro se. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Gregory T. Hartke, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
_______________