[Cite as Al-Bey v. Olender, 2022-Ohio-3393.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LUCAS COUNTY

Salih Abdul Malik Al-Bey Court of Appeals No. L-22-1197 

(Darrick Newsome)

Petitioner 

 

v.

Judge Lori Olender, et al. DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Respondents Decided: September 27, 2022

* * * * *

Salih Abdul Malik Al-Bey (Darrick Newsome), Pro se.

* * * * *

MAYLE, J.

{¶ 1} In this original action, filed on August 31, 2022, the petitioner identifies 

himself as “Salih Abdul Malik Al-Bey (Ex. Rel. Darrick Newsome).” Petitioner alleges 

that he is being unlawfully detained at the Allen-Oakwood Correctional Institution in 

Lima, Ohio and seeks a writ of habeas corpus from this court, ordering his immediate 
2.

release. The petition names three respondents: Edward Shelton, the warden of the AllenOakwood Correctional Institution, the Honorable Lori Olender of the Lucas County 

Court of Common Pleas and Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Evy Jarrett, also with the 

Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. 

{¶ 2} Petitioner failed to attach a copy of his commitment papers to his petition or 

to otherwise identify the cause of his detention, in violation of R.C. 2725.04(D). But, 

petitioner did attach a copy of an indictment, issued by the Lucas County Court of 

Common Pleas on December 2, 2011, which charged “Reynard Lewis” and “Darrick 

Newsome” with two counts of aggravated murder, three counts of aggravated robbery, 

two counts of aggravated burglary, and two counts of felonious assault. All counts 

included a firearm specification. (Lucas County Court of Common Pleas case No. 11-

2959). Petitioner failed to indicate the outcome of the criminal case, except to assert that 

he was “persecuted without having committed a crime” and has been “deprived of [his] 

liberty in involuntary servitude.” 

{¶ 3} R.C. 2725.03 (“Jurisdiction for production or discharge of inmate of 

institution”) limits the territorial jurisdiction of a court asked to consider a petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, R.C. 2725.03 provides:

If a person restrained of his liberty is an inmate of a state benevolent 

or correctional institution, the location of which is fixed by statute and at 

the time is in the custody of the officers of the institution, no court or judge 
3.

other than the courts or judges of the county in which the institution is 

located has jurisdiction to issue or determine a writ of habeas corpus for his 

production or discharge. Any writ issued by a court or judge of another 

county to an officer or person in charge at the state institution to compel the 

production or discharge of an inmate thereof is void.

{¶ 4} Petitioner alleges that he is currently incarcerated at the Allen Oakwood 

Correctional Institution, in Allen County, Ohio. This court has jurisdiction over Erie, 

Fulton, Huron, Lucas, Ottawa, Sandusky, Williams and Wood Counties but not Allen 

County. We therefore lack jurisdiction to determine whether or not petitioner is entitled 

to a writ of habeas corpus. Accord Lucci v. Turner, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2020-L-085, 

2020-Ohio-4697, ¶ 4 (“Petitioner admits he is imprisoned in Pickaway Correctional 

Institution, located in Orient, Ohio. This court has jurisdiction over Lake, Trumbull, 

Ashtabula, Portage, and Geauga counties. We therefore lack jurisdiction to entertain 

petitioner’s petition.”); see also, Rockwell v. Geauga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 11th 

Dist. Geauga No. 2005-G-2661, 2005-Ohio-5762 (Under R.C. 2725.03, the appellate 

court did not have the basic authority to consider the merits of the inmate’s habeas corpus 

petition or to issue a writ ordering his release because, although it did have jurisdiction 

over the county where the inmate was convicted, it did not have jurisdiction over the 

county where the inmate was incarcerated.)
4.

{¶ 5} As an aside, even if this court had jurisdiction to proceed, the petition is 

procedurally deficient because, as mentioned, it does not include the necessary 

commitment papers, in violation of R.C. 2725.04(D). This defect provides an 

independent foundation for dismissal. Hawkins v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility, 102 Ohio St.3d 

299, 2004-Ohio-2893, 809 N.E.2d 1145, ¶ 4 (Failure to attach commitment papers is fatal 

to habeas petition). Additionally, petitioner named improper parties in the petition. The 

individual who has actual legal custody over an inmate is the only proper respondent in a 

habeas corpus action. Lucci at ¶ 5. Here, petitioner improperly included Judge Olender

and Assistant Prosecutor Jarrett. The warden of the institution in which petitioner is 

incarcerated, Warden Shelton, is the only proper respondent in the instant action. Turner 

at ¶ 5. 

{¶ 6} As set forth above, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed. Costs are assessed to 

petitioner.

{¶ 7} To the Clerk: Manner of Service.

{¶ 8} The clerk is directed to serve upon all parties in a manner prescribed by 

Civ.R. 5(B) notice of the judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. 

Writ dismissed.
5.

Salih Abdul Malik Al-Bey

(Darrick Newsome)

v. Judge Lori Olender, et al.;

L-22-1197

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. ____________________________

JUDGE

Christine E. Mayle, J. 

____________________________

Myron C. Duhart, P.J. JUDGE

CONCUR. 

____________________________

JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of

Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported

version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.