[Cite as Calo v. Eppinger , 2016-Ohio-4681.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DENNIS CALO, et al. Appellants

v. LASHANN EPPINGER, et al. Appellees C.A. No. 15CA010854

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 15CV186830

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: June 30, 2016

SCHAFER, Judge. {¶1} Petitioners-Appellants, Dennis Calo and Donald Rich ard, appeal the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas dismissi ng their petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Respondents-Appellees, LaShann E ppinger, Gary Mohr, and Andre Imbrogno. 1 For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I. {¶2} Petitioners are both state in mates. Calo was convic ted in 1983 on two counts of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated mu rder. He is currently serving an indefinite prison term of 15 years-to-life. Richard was convicted in 1987 on one count of murder and one count of having a weapon while under disability, with both of those counts carrying an attendant firearm specification. Richard is currently serving an indefinite prison term of 21 years-to-life.

1 Eppinger is the Warden of Grafton Correc tional Institution in Grafton, Ohio, which is where Petitioners are presently confined. Mohr is director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Imbrogno is the chairman of the Ohio Parole Board.2

{¶3} Since their respective convictions, Calo a nd Richard have both f iled constant legal challenges with respect to their convictions and confinement. Most recently, Petitioners filed a joint petition on July 1, 2015, seeking a writ of hab eas corpus pursuant to R.C. 2725.01 et seq. In seeking a writ of habeas corpus, Petitioners argue that they are being “unlawfully restrained of their freedom [liberty]” as a result of Respondent s’ retroactive applicatio n of certain provisions within the Ohio Administrative Code that did not become effective until after they were both already incarcerated. In addition to their petition for habeas corpus, Petitioners also filed the following motions: (1) a motion for an order dire cting the Ohio Attorney General to conduct an investigation into the issues raised in their petition; (2) a motion for class certification pursuant to Civ.R. 23 on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated Ohio inmates; and (3) a motion for the appointment of counsel to aid in the putative class action lawsuit. {¶4} On August 3, 2015, Respondents filed a Civ.R . 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss and/or summary judgment motion on Petitioners’ habeas corpus petition. Re spondents also filed opposition briefs in response to Pe titioners’ three motions. Petitione rs thereafter filed responses to each of Respondent’s opposition briefs. On Au gust 27, 2015, the trial c ourt summarily denied all of Petitioners’ motions and granted Respondents’ motion to dismiss and/or summary judgment motion. {¶5} Petitioners filed this timely appeal, raising five assignments of error for this Court’s review. To facilitate our analysis, we elect to address Petitioners’ assignments of error together.

II. Assignment of Error I The habeas court committed prejudicial and reversible error, and/or abused its discretion when erroneously granting motion to dismiss without treating3

said motion to dismiss as a return of wr it violating Appellant’s U.S. and Ohio Constitutional rights und er 5th and 14th Amendments. Assignment of Error II The habeas court erroneously granted summary judgment for Appellee, and/or abused its discretion, denying the Appellants’ 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Ohio’s constitutional rights when the grounds used for summary judgment were false. Assignment of Error III The habeas court abused its discretion when erroneously granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss and/or summary judgment based on Appellees’ argument that res judicata bars habeas corpus relief on void parole board maximum sentence rendered void via official misconduct at time of [R.C. § 2967.13] parole eligibility in violation of Appellant’s 5th and 14th Amendment rights to the U.S. Constitution and Ohio’s Constitution. Assignment of Error IV The habeas court erred when granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss and summary judgment, when the Appellee erroneously argued that R.C. § 2967.03’s [clemency] statut e provides the adult pa role authority wideranging discretion, when discretion provided at ‘parole eligibility’ is governed solely pursuant to R.C. § 5120.01/(OAC) Rule 5120-1-1-02G) pre-7- 1-96 not R.C. § 2967.03 and denied Appellants 5th a nd 14th Amendment rights under the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions. Assignment of Error V The habeas court abused its discretion and ignored the 2003 change in Ohio’s Administrative Code Rule 5120-1- 1-07(A) [nature of crime] in it’s [sic] newly promulgated ‘mandatory’ fo rm in existence only after 2003, and erroneously granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss and summary judgment in violation of Appellant’s 5th and 14th Amendment rights to the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions Art. I, § 10. {¶6} In all five of their assignments of error, Petitioners challenge the propriety of the trial court’s decision granting Re spondents’ motion to dismiss and/or summary judgment motion. As Petitioners’ assignments of error do not challenge the trial court’s denial of their three supplemental motions, we limit our analysis solely to the trial court’s ac tion with respect to4

Respondents’ motion to dismiss a nd/or summary judgment motion. We do not reach the merits of Petitioners’ arguments, however, as we determine that Petitioners have failed to meet the statutory requirements for bringing a proper habeas corpus action. {¶7} R.C. 2725.04 sets forth the general provisions for applying for a writ of habeas corpus. This statute provides:

Application for the writ of habeas co rpus 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:

(A) That the person in whose behalf the a pplication is made is imprisoned, or restrained of his liberty;

(B) The officer, or name of the person by whom the prisoner is so confined or restrained; or, if both are unknown or unc ertain, such officer or person may be described by an assu med appellation and the pers on who is served with the writ is deemed the person intended;

(C) The place where the prisoner is so imprisoned or restrained, if known;

(D) A copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such person shall be exhibited, if it can be procured wit hout impairing the efficiency of the remedy; or, if the imprisonment or deten tion is without legal authority, such fact must appear. (Emphasis added). “‘Verification’ means a ‘formal declaration made in the presence of an authorized officer, such as a notary public, by which one swears to the truth of the statements in

the document.’” Chari v. Vore , 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 327 (2001), citing Black’s Law Dictionary 1556 (7th Ed.1999). The failure to comply wi th R.C. 2725.04’s verifica tion requirement is grounds for dismissing the habeas petition. Sidle v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 89 Ohio St.3d 520 (2000); Russell v. Mitchell, 84 Ohio St.3d 328, 329 (1999).5

{¶8} After reviewing the record, we determine that Petitioners’ habeas corpus petition was not properly verified. While Petitioners’ a ffidavits were properly notarized, neither the petition itself nor the accompanying affidavits expressly swore to the truth of the facts contained within the petition . Thus, the trial court did not err by granting Respondents’ motion to dismiss and/or summary judgment motion. Although Petitione rs attempted to cure this defect by later submitting amended affidavits in their opposition br ief to Respondent’s motion to dismiss and/or summary judgment motion, the failure to comp ly with the requirements of R.C. 2725.04 “cannot be remedied by a memorandum in opposition to mo tion to dismiss or a postjudgment motion.”

Jordan v. Johnson , 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2013-03-007, 2013-Ohio-3679, ¶ 16, quoting

Rideau v. Russell , 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2000-07-065, 2001 WL 409429, * 2 (2001). Consequently, we determine that the amended a ffidavits attached to their opposition briefs are

insufficient to cure the defects contained in the original affidavits. {¶9} Accordingly, all five of Petitioners’ assignments are overruled.

III. {¶10} As all five of Petitioners’ assignments of error are overruled, the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry th is judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.6

Immediately upon the filing hereof, this docum ent shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22 (C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. Costs taxed to Appellants.

JULIE A. SCHAFER FOR THE COURT

CARR, P. J. HENSAL, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES: DENNIS CALO and DONALD RICHARD, pro so, Appellants. MICHAEL DEWINE, Ohio Attorney General, and MAURA O’NEILL JAITE, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for Appellees.