[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Green v. Shoop, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-873.] 

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. 2020-OHIO-873

GREEN, APPELLANT, v. SHOOP, WARDEN, APPELLEE.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Green v. Shoop, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-873.] 

Habeas corpus—Res judicata—Alleged failure of state to file criminal complaint 

not cognizable in habeas corpus because defendant had been indicted—Res 

judicata bars successive habeas corpus petitions—Court of appeals’ 

judgment dismissing petition affirmed. 

(No. 2019-1052—Submitted December 10, 2019—Decided March 12, 2020.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, 

No. 19CA3675. 

___________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Appellant, Danny M. Green, appeals the judgment of the Fourth 

District Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus against 

appellee, Tim Shoop, warden of the Chillicothe Correctional Institution. Green has 

also filed a motion to strike the warden’s merit brief for lack of a valid certificate 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 2

of service. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals and deny the motion to 

strike. 

Green’s Petition 

{¶ 2} In April 2013, Green pleaded guilty to two amended charges of rape 

and the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate nine-year prison term. Green did 

not directly appeal his convictions or sentence. 

{¶ 3} In December 2015, Green filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

in the Ross County Court of Common Pleas, alleging deprivations of his 

constitutional rights. The trial court dismissed Green’s petition because he could 

have raised his claims on direct appeal. 

{¶ 4} On March 14, 2019, Green filed against the warden a petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus in the Fourth District, arguing that he was entitled to 

immediate release because no criminal complaint had been filed, the case had not 

been properly before the grand jury, and all subsequent proceedings were a nullity. 

{¶ 5} On June 28, 2019, the court of appeals granted the warden’s motion 

to dismiss on two grounds: Green’s claims were not cognizable in habeas corpus 

and res judicata bars his successive habeas corpus petition. Green appealed to this 

court. 

{¶ 6} The court of appeals’ analysis is correct in both respects. Res judicata 

bars Green’s 2019 habeas corpus petition because he filed an earlier petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus in which he could have raised any cognizable claim that he 

had, Bevins v. Richards, 144 Ohio St.3d 54, 2015-Ohio-2832, 40 N.E.3d 1108, ¶ 4. 

In addition, the claims raised in Green’s 2019 petition were not cognizable in 

habeas corpus. “Any defect caused by the alleged failure to file criminal complaints 

or the claimed impropriety of the municipal court’s assumption of jurisdiction over 

* * * rape charges is not cognizable in habeas corpus.” Taylor v. Mitchell, 88 Ohio 

St.3d 453, 454, 727 N.E.2d 905 (2000). Green was convicted and sentenced upon 
January Term, 2020 

3

indictments, and the trial court had jurisdiction over his case. Boylen v. Bradshaw, 

108 Ohio St.3d 181, 2006-Ohio-549, 842 N.E.2d 49, ¶ 5. 

Motion to Strike 

{¶ 7} S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.11(D)(1)(a) requires that “all documents presented for 

filing with the Clerk shall contain a certificate of service. The certificate of service 

shall state the date and manner of service and identify the names of the persons 

served and shall be signed by the party or the amicus curiae who files the 

document.” 

{¶ 8} A certificate of service on the warden’s merit brief states that the 

warden sent a copy of the brief to Green on October 8, 2019. Green has attached 

to his motion to strike a cover letter from the warden dated October 9, 2019, 

showing that October 9 was the date on which the warden sent his brief to Green. 

{¶ 9} Green claims that the discrepancy in the dates shows a “willful act” 

to deprive him of more time to prepare and deliver his reply brief. But Green 

presents no evidence to support this claim. Green did not request a time extension 

and he filed his reply brief before the due date. Green also acknowledges that he 

has not been prejudiced because, in Green’s words, the warden’s brief “contained 

nothing that even addressed Appellant’s claim of erroneous case law, let alone 

disproved it.” Accordingly, Green’s motion to strike is denied. 

Judgment affirmed. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 

and STEWART, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

Danny M. Green, pro se. 

Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Maura O’Neill Jaite, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee. 

_________________