[Cite as State ex rel. Turner v. Collins, 2021-Ohio-3492.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 

State ex rel. John Louis Turner, : 

 

 Petitioner, : 

 No. 19AP-862 

v. : 

 (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

Emma Collins, Warden of : 

Pickaway Correctional Institution, 

 : 

 Respondent. 

 : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on September 30, 2021 

 

 

On brief: John Louis Turner, pro se. 

On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Jerri L. 

Fosnaught, for respondent.

 

IN HABEAS CORPUS 

ON OBECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE’S DECISION 

HESS, J. 

{¶1} Petitioner, John Louis Turner, brought this original action requesting that 

this court issue (1) an injunction to “reopen” his criminal appeal in the Eleventh District 

Court of Appeals, or (2) a writ of habeas corpus ordering respondent, Emma Collins, 

warden at the Pickaway Correctional Institution, to release him from custody. [12/19/19 

petition] 

{¶2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of 

Appeals, this matter was referred to a magistrate who issued the appended decision, 

including findings of fact and conclusions of law. [8/8/20 entry; 8/12/20 decision] The 
No. 19AP-862 2

magistrate determined that because petitioner is incarcerated in Pickaway County, but 

filed his habeas corpus petition in Franklin County, this court lacks jurisdiction over his 

habeas corpus petition pursuant to R.C. 2725.03. [8/12/20 decision] Thus, the 

magistrate recommended that this court grant respondent’s motion to dismiss the 

petition. [Id.] 

{¶3} Subsequently, petitioner filed a “motion to alter or amend the judgment,” 

which we construe as an objection to the magistrate’s decision. [8/26/20 motion] 

Petitioner contends that in his underlying criminal case, the trial court violated his 

constitutional rights because it failed to comply with Crim.R. 44(C) when it allowed him 

to waive counsel. [Id.] He asks this court to correct the purported error. [Id.] 

{¶4} Petitioner does not challenge the magistrate’s conclusion that this court 

lacks jurisdiction in this matter, and we agree with that conclusion. “Pursuant to R.C. 

2725.03, only a court located in the county in which the petitioner is incarcerated 

possesses jurisdiction to issue or determine a writ of habeas corpus.” State ex rel. 

McIntyre v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 10th Dist. No. 19AP-732, 2021-Ohio-922, ¶ 12. 

Because the Tenth District Court of Appeals is located in Franklin County, Ohio, and 

petitioner is incarcerated in Pickaway County, Ohio, this court does not have jurisdiction 

to entertain petitioner’s request for a writ of habeas corpus. The magistrate did not 

address petitioner’s request for an injunction to reopen his criminal appeal. However, 

“[t]he courts of appeals do not have original jurisdiction in injunction.” State ex rel. Dist. 

1199, Health Care & Social Serv. Union, SEIU, AFL-CIO v. Gulyassy, 107 Ohio App.3d 

729, 733, 669 N.E.2d 487 (10th Dist.1995), fn. 2, citing State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. 

Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631 (1967), paragraph four of the syllabus. 

{¶5} Following review of the magistrate’s decision, an independent review of the 

record, and due consideration of petitioner’s objection, we find the magistrate properly 

determined the pertinent facts and applied the appropriate law with the exception of the 

failure to address the request for an injunction to reopen the criminal appeal. We overrule 

petitioner’s objection and adopt the magistrate’s decision as our own, including the 

findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. However, we modify that 

decision to reflect that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s request for an 

injunction to reopen his criminal appeal. We also modify the magistrate’s decision to 

correct a typographical error in paragraph 12, infra, which states “this court should 
No. 19AP-862 3

granted respondent’s motion” but should state “this court should grant respondent’s 

motion.” In accordance with the magistrate’s decision, we grant respondent’s motion to 

dismiss and dismiss this action. 

Objection overruled;

motion to dismiss granted; 

action dismissed. 

DORRIAN and SCHUSTER, JJ., concur 

HESS, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by 

assignment in the Tenth Appellate District. 

____________________ 
No. 19AP-862 4 

A P P E N D I X 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 

State ex rel. John Louis Turner, : 

 

 Petitioner, : 

 No. 19AP-862 

v. : 

 (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

Emma Collins, Warden of : 

Pickaway Correctional Institution, 

 : 

 Respondent. 

 : 

 

M A G I S T R A T E ' S D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on August 12, 2020

 

 

John Louis Turner, pro se. 

Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Jerri L. Fosnaught, for 

respondent.

 

IN HABEAS CORPUS 

 

{¶6} Petitioner, John Louis Turner, has filed this original action requesting that 

this court issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering respondent, Emma Collins, Warden, at 

Pickaway Correctional Institution, to immediately release him from incarceration 

because his sentence has expired. 

Findings of Fact: 

{¶7} 1. Petitioner is an inmate currently incarcerated at Pickaway Correctional 

Institution. 

{¶8} 2. Pickaway Correctional Institution is located in Pickaway County, Ohio. 
No. 19AP-862 5

{¶9} 3. The Tenth District Court of Appeals, in which petitioner has filed this 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus, is located in Franklin County, Ohio. 

{¶10} 4. On April 3, 2020, respondent filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that 

petitioner failed to file his petition in the proper county, pursuant to R.C. 2725.03. 

{¶11} 5. The matter is currently before the magistrate on respondent's motion to 

dismiss. 

Conclusions of Law: 

{¶12} For the reasons that follow, it is this magistrate's decision that this court 

should granted respondent's motion and dismiss petitioner's habeas corpus action. 

{¶13} 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 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. 

{¶14} A writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy that is available only in 

cases "where there is an unlawful restraint of a person's liberty and no adequate remedy 

at law." Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-Ohio-1980, ¶ 8. 

{¶15} R.C. 2725.03 requires an inmate to file his or her petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus in the court of the county in which the institution is located. Petitioner is 

incarcerated in Pickaway County; thus, petitioner was required to file his petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus in Pickaway County. 

{¶16} Accordingly, because this court lacks jurisdiction over petitioner's habeas 

corpus petition, it is this magistrate's decision that this court should grant respondent's 

motion and dismiss the petition. 

 /S/ MAGISTRATE 

 THOMAS W. SCHOLL III 

 
No. 19AP-862 6

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES 

Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) provides that a party shall not assign as 

error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or 

legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a 

finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), 

unless the party timely and specifically objects to that factual 

finding or legal conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).