[Cite as King v. Black, 2024-Ohio-1917.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF LORAIN )

ROY KING, III

Petitioner

v.

JENNIFER BLACK, WARDEN

Respondent

C.A. No. 24CA012076

ORIGINAL ACTION IN 

HABEAS CORPUS

Dated: May 20, 2024

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} Roy King petitioned this Court for a writ of habeas corpus to compel Respondent, 

Jennifer Black, to release him from custody. Warden Black moved to dismiss. For the following 

reasons, this Court grants the motion to dismiss.

{¶2} When this Court reviews a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), we must 

presume that all of the factual allegations in the petition are true and make all reasonable inferences 

in favor of the nonmoving party. State ex rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson, 69 Ohio St.3d 489, 490 (1994). 

A petition can only be dismissed when, having viewed it in this way, it appears beyond doubt that 

the petitioner can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to the relief requested. Goudlock v. 

Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 389, 2008-Ohio-4787, ¶ 7. With this standard in mind, we begin with 

the facts alleged in the petition.

{¶3} According to Mr. King’s petition, he served a sentence based on a conviction from 

Hamilton County. He was released and ordered to serve three years of postrelease control. Mr. 
C.A. No. 24CA012076

Page 2 of 4

 

King was alleged to have violated the terms of his postrelease control and taken into custody by 

the Adult Parole Authority. Following a hearing, he received a sanction and was returned to prison.

{¶4} Mr. King filed this petition seeking his immediate release from custody. The 

petition sets forth nine grounds for relief. All of the arguments focus on Mr. King’s allegations 

that a parole officer and a police officer violated his constitutional rights by conducting an unlawful 

search, an unlawful seizure, and providing perjured testimony and fabricated evidence at the 

revocation hearing.

{¶5} Warden Black moved to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). She argued that 

habeas corpus does not provide a remedy for the claims set forth in the petition. The Warden noted 

that habeas corpus provides a remedy only when the petitioner is entitled to immediate release 

from confinement and, she argued, that Mr. King would not be entitled to immediate release based 

on the petition’s allegations. She also argued that mandamus would provide an alternative remedy 

that would prevent the grant of the writ of habeas corpus.

{¶6} State habeas corpus relief is available in specific, extraordinary circumstances. 

R.C. Chapter 2725 prescribes the procedure for bringing a habeas corpus action. The petitioner 

must file a petition that contains specific, required, information. If the petition fails to state a 

claim, this Court should dismiss it. Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 327 (2001). For this Court 

to grant the writ, Mr. King must demonstrate that there is an unlawful restraint of his liberty and 

that he is entitled to immediate release from confinement. Pegan v. Crawmer, 76 Ohio St.3d 97, 

99-100 (1996); Plaza v. Black, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-853, ¶ 4. 

{¶7} Mr. King has alleged through his petition that he is being held unlawfully because 

of police misconduct from his arrest through the revocation hearing. As noted above, to dismiss a 

petition under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), it must appear beyond doubt from the petition, after all factual 
C.A. No. 24CA012076

Page 3 of 4

 

allegations are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are made in favor of Mr. King, that he 

can prove no set of facts warranting relief. State ex rel. Dehler v. Sutula, Judge, 74 Ohio St.3d 33, 

34 (1995). “A writ of habeas corpus is warranted in certain extraordinary circumstances ‘where 

there is an unlawful restraint of a person’s liberty and there is no adequate remedy in the ordinary 

course of law.’” Johnson v. Timmerman-Cooper, 93 Ohio St.3d 614, 616 (2001), quoting Pegan 

v. Crawmer, 76 Ohio St.3d 97, 99 (1996); Plaza, 2024-Ohio-853, ¶ 4.

{¶8} The Ohio Supreme Court recently addressed an argument like Mr. King’s in Plaza 

v. Black, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-853. In Plaza, “the crux of each of [the habeas corpus 

petitioner’s] arguments is that the manner in which the parole-revocation procedures were 

conducted violated his right to due process.” Id. at ¶ 10. The Supreme Court recognized that, 

generally, the sole remedy for these kinds of violations is a writ of mandamus seeking to compel 

that Adult Parole Authority to conduct a second hearing. Id.

{¶9} Habeas corpus provides a remedy for due-process violations only in extreme 

circumstances involving unreasonable delay. State ex rel. Ellison v. Black, 165 Ohio St.3d 310, 

2021-Ohio-3154, ¶ 13. The petition in this case does not allege an unreasonable delay in holding 

the revocation hearing.

{¶10} Habeas corpus does not provide a remedy for the due process violations alleged in 

the petition. Considering all of the allegations in Mr. King’s petition as true, they are insufficient 

to warrant habeas corpus relief. The motion to dismiss is granted, and this case is dismissed. Costs 

are taxed to Mr. King.
C.A. No. 24CA012076

Page 4 of 4

 

{¶11} The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default notice 

of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See Civ.R. 58.

BETTY SUTTON

FOR THE COURT

CARR, J.

HENSAL, J.

CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

ROY KING, Pro Se, Petitioner.

DAVE YOST, Attorney General, and JERRI L. FOSNAUGHT, Assistant Attorney General, for 

Respondent.