[Cite as Zayas v. State, 2016-Ohio-8038.]

STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

SEVENTH DISTRICT 

JOSE M. ZAYAS ) CASE NO. 16 MA 0137 

) 

PETITIONER ) 

) 

VS. ) OPINION AND 

) JUDGMENT ENTRY 

STATE OF OHIO ) 

) 

RESPONDENT ) 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

JUDGMENT: Dismissed. 

APPEARANCES: 

For Petitioner: Jose M. Zayas, Pro se 

Jail I.D. No. 54065 

Mahoning County Justice Center 

110 Fifth Avenue 

Youngstown, Ohio 44503 

For Respondent: Atty. Paul J. Gains 

Mahoning County Prosecutor 

Atty. Ralph M. Rivera 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

21 West Boardman Street, 6th Floor 

Youngstown, Ohio 44503 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Cheryl L. Waite 

Hon. Mary DeGenaro 

Hon. Carol Ann Robb 

Dated: December 7, 2016
[Cite as Zayas v. State, 2016-Ohio-8038.]

PER CURIAM. 

{¶1} Petitioner Jose Zayas, proceeding on his own behalf, filed a writ of 

habeas corpus seeking immediate release from incarceration at the Mahoning 

County Jail in Youngstown, Ohio. Respondent State of Ohio has filed a motion to 

dismiss. 

{¶2} According to his petition, Petitioner was “illegally arrested without 

warrant” on August 6, 2016, by Youngstown Police and taken to the Mahoning 

County Jail pending action by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Petitioner alleges 

that he has been held in the jail for 24 days without appearing before a judge or 

magistrate in violation of the Uniform Extradition Act. 

{¶3} Upon review, it is apparent that the petition must be dismissed for two 

reasons. The first is that when an inmate files a civil action filed against a 

governmental entity or employee, R.C. 2969.25(A) requires the petitioner to file an 

affidavit with the petition describing all civil actions and appeals that petitioner has 

filed in state or federal court within the past five years. Petitioner has not included 

the required affidavit. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that the “requirements of 

R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory and failure to comply with them requires dismissal of an 

inmate’s complaint.” State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, 140 Ohio St.3d 297, 2014-Ohio-3735, 

17 N.E.3d 581, ¶ 4. See also Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211, 2003-Ohio5533, 797 N.E.2d 982, ¶ 6-9 (“A habeas corpus action is a civil action and therefore 

the provisions of R.C. 2969.21 through 2969.27 are applicable to such action.” Id. at 

syllabus). 
-2-

{¶4} The second reason the petition fails goes to the underlying basis of the 

petition itself: the purported delay in extradition proceedings. Respondent has 

attached to its motion to dismiss a copy of an indictment issued by the Mahoning 

County Grand Jury subsequent to Petitioner’s arrest reflecting that Petitioner has 

been charged in this state with carrying a concealed weapon (fourth-degree felony) 

and having a weapon while under disability (third-degree felony). R.C. 2963.17 

addresses this type of situation and provides that the state may hold a fugitive 

indicted in this state or surrender him: 

If a criminal prosecution has been instituted under the laws of this state 

against a person sought by another state under sections 2963.01 to 

2963.27, inclusive, of the Revised Code, and is still pending, the 

governor may surrender him on demand of the executive authority of 

another state or hold him until he has been tried and discharged or 

convicted and punished in this state. (Emphasis added.) 

{¶5} Based on the foregoing, we dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus. 

{¶6} Costs taxed against Petitioner. Final order. Clerk to serve notice as 

provided by the Civil Rules. 

Waite, J., concurs. 

DeGenaro, J., concurs. 

Robb, J., concurs.