Opinion ID: 6215640
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Shie’s Mandamus Claim and Motion for Damages

Text: {¶ 8} To obtain a writ of mandamus, Shie must establish (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of the APA to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. See State ex rel. Marsh v. Tibbals, 149 Ohio St.3d 656, 2017-Ohio-829, 77 N.E.3d 909, ¶ 24. Shie argues that he has a clear legal right to relief because the APA failed to follow its internal policies governing the postrelease-control-violation hearing process. {¶ 9} Shie first argues that the APA did not conduct a violation hearing within ten business days of placing him in custody, allegedly in violation of ODRC Policy 100-APA- 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 14.1 Shie contends that this failure to follow the ODRC policy should result in his release from prison. But Shie’s argument fails because a writ of mandamus is not the proper remedy. “Habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the appropriate action for persons claiming entitlement to immediate release from prison.” State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole Bd., 80 Ohio St.3d 140, 141, 684 N.E.2d 1227 (1997). Thus, to the extent that Shie seeks release from prison, his claim is not cognizable in mandamus.2 {¶ 10} As alternative relief, Shie asks for a writ of mandamus ordering the APA to abide by its internal policy governing the postrelease-control-violation hearing process. Specifically, Shie cites ODRC Policy 105-PBD-09, which, he contends, shows that the most serious violation that he was found to have committed warranted only a 90-day prison term. Shie also argues that no prison term longer than 180 days may be imposed without the APA chief hearing officer’s approval, which Shie argues did not happen in this case. Thus, Shie contends that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering the APA to either reduce his 270-day prison sentence or have the sentence reviewed by the APA chief hearing officer. {¶ 11} Shie is not entitled to the requested relief. He relies solely on ODRC Policy 105-PBD-09 as the source of the alleged duty he seeks to enforce. But the creation of a duty enforceable in mandamus is the function of the legislative branch of government. State ex rel. Clough v. Franklin Cty. Children Servs., 144 Ohio St.3d 83, 2015-Ohio-3425, 40 N.E.3d 1132, ¶ 15. An internal policy of an agency does not create a legal duty enforceable in mandamus. See id.; see also State ex rel. Aaron’s, Inc. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 148 Ohio St.3d 34, 2016-Ohio-5011, 68 N.E.3d 757, ¶ 26. And as a 1. ODRC Policy 100-APA-14(VI)(G)(2) provides that a “hold order” shall be placed on an offender when the APA intends to proceed with a violation hearing. https://drc.ohio.gov/Portals/0/Policies/DRC%20Policies/100-APA-14%20(Feb%202021).pdf?ver =RC20o4CIF7l2McRoOGoQoQ%3d%3d (accessed Dec. 21, 2021) [https://perma.cc/8AGD -NLRB]. The APA has five business days to sanction the offender and remove the hold order. Id. The APA may extend an active hold order for up to five additional business days. ODRC Policy 100-APA-14(G)(3). 2. After the APA filed its merit brief in this case, Shie filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Supreme Court case No. 2021-1027. We dismissed that action sua sponte. Shie v. Black, 164 Ohio St.3d 1446, 2021-Ohio-3336, 173 N.E.3d 1240. 4 January Term, 2022 statutory matter, the prison term imposed on Shie is not unlawful. R.C. 2967.28(F)(3) authorizes the imposition of a prison term of up to nine months for a violation of postrelease-control conditions. Accordingly, Shie has not shown the existence of a clear legal right or clear legal duty enforceable in mandamus. {¶ 12} Shie has also filed a motion for recovery of monetary damages under R.C. 2731.11, which states: “If judgment in a proceeding for a writ of mandamus is rendered for the plaintiff, the relator may recover the damages which he has sustained   .” Because we are denying the writ, Shie is not entitled to damages under the statute. See State ex rel. Natl. City Bank v. Maloney, 103 Ohio St.3d 93, 2004-Ohio-4437, 814 N.E.2d 58, ¶ 13. {¶ 13} For the foregoing reasons, Shie is not entitled to any of the relief he seeks. We deny Shie’s motions and deny the writ. Writ denied. O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. _________________ David Shie, pro se. Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Mark W. Altier and Lori H. Duckworth, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent. _________________ 5