[Cite as Stevenson v. Larose, 2018-Ohio-3373.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

MAHONING COUNTY

IN RE: ZAMAAR STEVENSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, WARDEN, 

Respondent.

 

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY 

Case No. 18 MA 0014 

 

Writ of Habeas Corpus 

BEFORE: 

Cheryl L. Waite, Gene Donofrio, Carol Ann Robb, Judges. 

JUDGMENT: 

Dismissed. 

Zamaar Stevenson, #38168068, CoreCivic, fka Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, 

2240 Hubbard Road in Youngstown, Ohio 44505, Pro se 

Christopher Larose, Warden, CoreCivic, fka Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, 2240, 

Hubbard Road in Youngstown, Ohio 44505, Pro se. 

 

Dated: August 16, 2018 

 

PER CURIAM. 
 – 2 – 

Case No. 18 MA 0014

{¶1} Petitioner Zamaar Stevenson, proceeding on his own behalf, has filed a 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition alleges that he is being imprisoned and 

restrained of his liberty at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (NEOCC), operated 

by CoreCivic, located at 2240 Hubbard Road in Youngstown, Mahoning County, Ohio. 

{¶2} The writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary writ and will only be issued 

in certain circumstances of unlawful restraint of a person’s liberty where there is no 

adequate legal remedy of law. In re Pianowski, 7th Dist. No. 03 MA 16, 2003-Ohio3881; State ex rel. Pirman v. Money, 69 Ohio St.3d 591, 593, 635 N.E.2d 26 (1994). 

The burden is on the Petitioner to establish a right to release. Halleck v. Koloski, 4 Ohio 

St.2d 76, 212 N.E.2d 601 (1965). 

{¶3} The habeas petition is deficient on several grounds. First, the petition 

does not allege an unlawful restraint. R.C. 2725.01 provides: “Whoever is unlawfully

restrained of his liberty, or entitled to the custody of another, of which custody such 

person is unlawfully deprived, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus * * *.” (Emphasis 

added.) The petition states that he is “imprisoned and restrained of his liberty.” 

Petitioner does not claim that he is being restrained unlawfully, and therefore, he has 

failed to allege the first and primary element of a habeas action. 

{¶4} Second, Petitioner did not attach his commitment papers to the petition. 

R.C. 2725.04 requires the following: 

Application for the writ of habeas corpus shall be by petition, signed and 

verified either by the party for whose relief it is intended, or by some 

person for him, and shall specify: 

* * * 
 – 3 – 

Case No. 18 MA 0014

(D) A copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such person shall 

be exhibited, if it can be procured without impairing the efficiency of the 

remedy; or, if the imprisonment or detention is without legal authority, such 

fact must appear. 

{¶5} The Ohio Supreme Court has explained, 

These commitment papers are necessary for a complete understanding of 

the petition. Without them, the petition is fatally defective. When a 

petition is presented to a court that does not comply with R.C. 2725.04(D), 

there is no showing of how the commitment was procured and there is 

nothing before the court on which to make a determined judgment except, 

of course, the bare allegations of petitioner’s application. 

Bloss v. Rogers, 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 146, 602 N.E.2d 602 (1992). The papers must be 

included with the petition and failure to file them cannot be cured by filing them at some 

later point in the habeas proceedings. Boyd v. Money, 82 Ohio St.3d 388, 389, 696 

N.E.2d 568 (1998); Davis v. Banks, 7th Dist. No. 12 NO 397, 2013-Ohio-1852, ¶ 8. 

{¶6} Third, the petition does not contain an affidavit of prior civil actions. When 

an inmate files a civil action 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. 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. 
 – 4 – 

Case No. 18 MA 0014

{¶7} Fourth, Petitioner has alleged facts that defeat our jurisdiction over the 

petition. Petitioner alleges he is being restrained at NEOCC by CoreCivic. This Court 

has recognized and takes judicial notice of the fact that NEOCC is a facility housing, at 

least in part, federal inmates awaiting action in federal court. Perotti v. Warden, 7th 

Dist. No. 05-MA-102, 2005-Ohio-3780. See also Brown v. Ohio, N.D.Ohio No. 1:15 CV 

380, 2015 WL 5165480 (Aug. 28, 2015); CoreCivic, Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, 

http://www.corecivic.com/facilities/northeast-ohio-correctional-center#jc-details 

(accessed Apr. 3, 2018). The Ohio Supreme Court has held that: 

State courts lack jurisdiction to determine a habeas corpus petition filed by 

an inmate of a federal prison. See, e.g., Ex Parte Bushnell (1858), 8 Ohio 

St. 599, 601; Perotti v. Northeast Ohio Correctional Corp. Warden, 

Mahoning App. No. 05-MA-102, 2005-Ohio-3780, ¶ 4 (“this state court 

lacks jurisdiction to determine a habeas petition filed by an inmate of a 

facility housing federal prisoners”); State v. Goist, Trumbull App. No. 2002-

T-0136, 2003-Ohio-3549, ¶ 25 (state common pleas court lacked 

jurisdiction over federal inmate housed in another state); R.C. 2725.03. 

Perotti v. Stine, 113 Ohio St.3d 312, 2007-Ohio-1957, 865 N.E.2d 50, ¶ 5 (2007). 

{¶8} Because this Court is a state court, it is legally incompetent to determine a 

habeas corpus petition filed by an inmate in federal custody, and Petitioner has given us 

no indication that he is other than a federal inmate in a federal facility. 

{¶9} Accordingly, we sua sponte dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus for lack of jurisdiction and for the aforementioned procedural faults. 
 – 5 – 

Case No. 18 MA 0014

{¶10} Following the filing of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner 

filed in this case and with the Clerk of Courts for this Court a federal criminal complaint 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4 (Misprision of felony), a federal criminal statute, against 

Respondent. The Ohio Supreme Court has clearly held, “It is undisputed that Ohio 

courts lack jurisdiction over federal criminal prosecutions and the enforcement of federal 

criminal laws.” State v. Chappell, 127 Ohio St.3d 376, 2010-Ohio-5991, 939 N.E.2d 

1234, ¶ 37. Accordingly, the criminal complaint is likewise dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

{¶11} Final order. Clerk to service notice as provide by the Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Costs taxed to Petitioner. 

{¶12} Copy to counsel or unrepresented party, as well as the U.S. Attorney’s 

Office, 100 Federal Plaza East, Youngstown, Ohio 44503 and Ohio Attorney General, 

Criminal Justice Section, 150 East Gay Street, 16th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215. 

 

JUDGE GENE DONOFRIO 

JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE 

JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB