Court Opinion

ID: 9950310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 18:10:19.528324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:36.673714
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Hayes v. Baldwin, 2024-Ohio-928.]

                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                  TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Sharieff Hayes,                                     :

                                                    :
                Petitioner,                                        No. 23AP-685
                                                    :
v.                                                             (REGULAR CALENDAR)
                                                    :
Sheriff, Dallas Baldwin,
                                                    :
                Respondent.

                                             D E C I S I O N

                                    Rendered on March 12, 2024

                On brief: Sharieff Hayes, pro se.

                                      IN HABEAS CORPUS
                                   ON SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL

EDELSTEIN, J.
        {¶ 1} Petitioner, Sharieff Hayes, filed this original action requesting this court to
issue a writ of habeas corpus. Mr. Hayes alleges he is being unlawfully detained without
bail by respondent, Franklin County Sheriff Dallas Baldwin.
        {¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals,
we referred the matter to a magistrate of this court. On November 29, 2023, the magistrate
issued the appended decision. The magistrate’s decision included findings of fact and
conclusions of law and recommended that we sua sponte dismiss Mr. Hayes’s complaint
for a writ of habeas corpus. The magistrate found that Mr. Hayes (1) failed to comply with
R.C. 2969.25(A) by filing an affidavit of prior civil actions, and (2) failed to either pay the
filing fee for commencement of this action or provide an affidavit of indigency that complies
with R.C. 2969.25(C).
No. 23AP-685                                                                                    2

       {¶ 3} No objections to that decision have been filed. If no timely objections are
filed, we may adopt a magistrate’s decision unless we determine there is an error of law or
other defect evident on the face of the decision. See Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(c).
       {¶ 4} Finding no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate’s decision,
this court adopts the magistrate’s decision as our own, including the findings of fact and
conclusions of law. In accordance with the magistrate’s decision, we sua sponte dismiss
Mr. Hayes’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.1
                                                                                Case dismissed.

                        DORRIAN and BEATTY BLUNT, JJ., concur.

1 As noted by the magistrate, our dismissal of the action renders moot Mr. Hayes’s “Motion for
Supplemental Pleading of Injunction” and “Preliminary or Mandatory Injunction.” (See Nov. 29, 2023
Mag.’s Decision at 8.)
No. 23AP-685                                                                                                  3

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                   TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Sharieff Hayes,                                         :

                 Petitioner,                            :

v.                                                      :                        No. 23AP-685

                                                        :
Sheriff, Dallas Baldwin,                                                   (REGULAR CALENDAR)
                                                        :
                 Respondent.
                                                        :

                               MAGISTRATE’S DECISION

                                  Rendered on November 29, 2023

                 Sharieff Hayes, pro se.

                                       IN HABEAS CORPUS
                                    ON SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL

        {¶ 5} Petitioner, Sharieff Hayes, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. In his petition, petitioner seeks immediate release and alleges he is being unlawfully
detained without bail by respondent, Franklin County Sheriff Dallas Baldwin. Because
petitioner has failed to comply with the inmate filing requirements in R.C. 2969.25, his
complaint must be dismissed.

I. Findings of Fact
        {¶ 6} 1. Petitioner is the defendant in State of Ohio v. Hayes, Franklin C.P. No.
20CR-3511 (“Case No. 20CR-3511”).2 Petitioner is currently confined at the Franklin
County Corrections Center II, a county jail located on Jackson Pike in Columbus, Ohio.

2 A court may take judicial notice of facts not subject to reasonable dispute insofar as they affect the current

original action. See State ex rel. Ohio Republican Party v. Fitzgerald, 145 Ohio St.3d 92, 2015-Ohio-5056,
¶ 18 (taking judicial notice of information presented in an unopposed motion and also available on a
No. 23AP-685                                                                                                   4

        {¶ 7} 2. Respondent Dallas Baldwin is an elected official currently serving as
Sheriff of Franklin County.
        {¶ 8} 3. Earlier this year, petitioner filed two appeals from Case No. 20CR-3511 to
this court. In both cases, this court dismissed petitioner’s appeals for lack of a final
appealable order. State of Ohio v. Hayes, 10th Dist. No. 23AP-481 (Aug. 10, 2023 Journal
Entry of Dismissal); State of Ohio v. Hayes, 10th Dist. No. 23AP-536 (Sept. 12, 2023
Journal Entry of Dismissal).
        {¶ 9} 4. On September 21, 2023, petitioner filed a complaint in this court
requesting a writ of mandamus/procedendo in Case No. 23AP-562. In the alternative,
petitioner requested a writ of habeas corpus.
        {¶ 10} 5. On November 13, 2023, petitioner commenced this original action by
filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
        {¶ 11} 6. In his petition, petitioner states the following with regard to bail or bond
hearings in Case No. 20CR-3511:
                 I have been detained without bail since my first bond hearing
                 that was scheduled and heard with the assistance of counsel
                 on June 28, 2023, and my most recent pro se bond hearing
                 that was scheduled and heard on August 23, 2023. * * * My
                 bond was revoked under the judicial discretion of presiding
                 Judge Phipps on May 15, 2023, however, there is no journal
                 entry of record in compliance with Franklin Cty. Gen. Div. LR
                 25 in support of Judge Phipps order to revoke my bond on
                 May 15, 2023, or any orders denying bond/bail on June 28,
                 2023 nor August 23, 2023 bond hearings.
(Petition at 1-2.) Petitioner states that a “review of the court docket for criminal case No.
20CR-3511 reveals no journal entry/order from Judge Phipps in compliance with
Franklin Cty. Gen. Div. LR 25, * * * which would constitute a final appealable order as
provided in O.R.C. 2937.222(D)(1), and grant Sheriff Dallas Baldwin the authority to
detain me without bail.” (Petition at 2.)
        {¶ 12} Regarding the rights implicated, petitioner states:

publicly accessible website); State ex rel. Mobley v. O’Donnell, 10th Dist. No. 20AP-193, 2021-Ohio-715,
¶ 9, quoting State ex rel. Nelson v. Russo, 89 Ohio St.3d 227, 228 (2000) (“Ohio courts may take judicial
notice in ‘writ action[s] without converting * * * [a] dismissal motion to a motion for summary
judgment.’ ”); Evid.R. 201(B). Based on the foregoing, it is appropriate in this instance to take judicial notice
of the docket of the common pleas court in Case No. 20CR-3511.
No. 23AP-685                                                                             5

              Denial of a reasonable bail or detention without a bail
              altogether violates my right to due process of the law and
              equal protection, and to be protected from excessive bail or
              cruel an[d] unusual punishment as guaranteed by the Fifth,
              Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
              Constitution, and Section 9, 10, and 16, Article 1 of the Ohio
              Constitution. Also, my current detention without bail is a
              contravention of Section 9, Article 1, of the Ohio Constitution,
              and lack of journal entries granting the order revoking my
              bond related May 15, 2023, and the orders denying bond
              reinstatement/denial of bail related to June 28, 2023 or
              August 23, 2023 from trial Judge Phipps in compliance with
              Franklin Cty. Gen. Div. LR 25 also contravenes the above-
              mentioned state and federal constitutions as well as O.R.C.
              2937.222 (A)(B), which is required in order to deny an
              accused person bail who is charged with a first or second
              degree felony and O.R.C. 2937.222 (D)(1) in which a journal
              entry of an order denying bail would constitute a final
              appealable order.
(Petition at 2-3.) Therefore, petitioner asserts his “current detention without bail by
Sheriff Dallas Baldwin in Franklin County Corrections Center 2 is unlawful” and
“petition[s] this Court to grant [his] immediate release * * * by order of reinstating my
previously set bond release, or by order of a personal recognizance bond release, or by
order of whatever release conditions this Court deems necessary under O.R.C. 2725.18.”
(Petition at 4-5.)
       {¶ 13} 7. Attached to his petition, petitioner filed a document on November 13,
2023 labeled “FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE FORM.” In the form, which was signed by
petitioner on November 13, 2023, petitioner states the following: “I, Sharieff Hayes, * * *
am financially unable to retain private counsel without substantial hardship to me or my
family.” (Nov. 13, 2023 Financial Disclosure Form at 2.) The form, which contains
sections for the filer to indicate income, expenses, employer, and assets, does not reflect
any information in the aforementioned sections. Hayes has not paid the filing fee for the
commencement of this action.
       {¶ 14} 8. On November 20, 2023, petitioner filed in this case a document
captioned “Preliminary or Mandatory Injunction,” in which petitioner characterized the
document as an “Injunction complaint/petition.” (Nov. 20, 2023 Document at 6.)
Petitioner requested oral argument in this document.
No. 23AP-685                                                                              6

       {¶ 15} 9. On November 20, 2023, petitioner also filed a “Motion For Supplemental
Pleading of Injunction.” (Nov. 20, 2023 Mot. at 1.)

II. Discussion and Conclusions of Law
       {¶ 16} R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C) provide procedural requirements for inmates
commencing a civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee. See State
ex rel. Foster v. Foley, 170 Ohio St.3d 86, 2022-Ohio-3168, ¶ 10; State ex rel.
Swanson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 156 Ohio St.3d 408, 2019-Ohio-1271, ¶ 6.
Compliance with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C) is mandatory, and failure
to comply compels dismissal. Boles v. Knab, 129 Ohio St.3d 222, 2011-Ohio-2859, ¶ 1.
       {¶ 17} Under R.C. 2969.25(A), an inmate commencing a civil action in the court of
appeals must file an affidavit containing a “description of each civil action or appeal of a
civil action that the inmate has filed in the previous five years in any state or federal
court.” To comply with R.C. 2969.25(A), the filed affidavit must include all of the
following:
              (1) A brief description of the nature of the civil action or
              appeal;
              (2) The case name, case number, and the court in which the
              civil action or appeal was brought;
              (3) The name of each party to the civil action or appeal;
              (4) The outcome of the civil action or appeal, including
              whether the court dismissed the civil action or appeal as
              frivolous or malicious under state or federal law or rule of
              court, whether the court made an award against the inmate or
              the inmate’s counsel of record for frivolous conduct under
              section 2323.51 of the Revised Code, another statute, or a rule
              of court, and, if the court so dismissed the action or appeal or
              made an award of that nature, the date of the final order
              affirming the dismissal or award.
R.C. 2969.25(A). See Swanson at ¶ 5.
       {¶ 18} With regard to the requirements for an affidavit of indigency, the statute
provides as follows:
              If an inmate who files a civil action or appeal against a
              government entity or employee seeks a waiver of the
              prepayment of the full filing fees assessed by the court in
              which the action or appeal is filed, the inmate shall file with
No. 23AP-685                                                                               7

             the complaint or notice of appeal an affidavit that the inmate
             is seeking a waiver of the prepayment of the court's full filing
             fees and an affidavit of indigency. The affidavit of waiver and
             the affidavit of indigency shall contain all of the following:
             (1) A statement that sets forth the balance in the inmate
             account of the inmate for each of the preceding six months, as
             certified by the institutional cashier;
             (2) A statement that sets forth all other cash and things of
             value owned by the inmate at that time.
R.C. 2969.25(C).
      {¶ 19} R.C.    2969.21    provides   definitions    applicable   to       R.C. 2969.25.
R.C. 2969.21(B) defines what actions and appeals constitute a “civil action or appeal
against a government entity or employee” as follows:
             (1) “Civil action or appeal against a government entity or
             employee” means any of the following:
             (a) A civil action that an inmate commences against the state,
             a political subdivision, or an employee of the state or a
             political subdivision in a court of common pleas, court of
             appeals, county court, or municipal court;
             (b) An appeal of the judgment or order in a civil action of the
             type described in division (B)(1)(a) of this section that an
             inmate files in a court of appeals.
             (2) “Civil action or appeal against a governmental entity or
             employee” does not include any civil action that an inmate
             commences against the state, a political subdivision, or an
             employee of the state or a political subdivision in the court of
             claims or the supreme court or an appeal of the judgment or
             order entered by the court of claims in a civil action of that
             nature, that an inmate files in a court of appeals or the
             supreme court.
R.C. 2969.21(B). The term “inmate” is defined under the statute as “a person who is in
actual confinement in a state correctional institution or in a county, multicounty,
municipal, municipal-county, or multicounty-municipal jail or workhouse or a releasee
who is serving a sanction in a violation sanction center.” (Emphasis added.)
R.C. 2969.21(D). The term “inmate account” is defined as “an account maintained by the
department of rehabilitation and correction under rules adopted by the director of
rehabilitation and correction pursuant to section 5120.01 of the Revised Code or a similar
No. 23AP-685                                                                              8

account maintained by a sheriff or any other administrator of a jail or workhouse or by
the administrator of a violation sanction center.” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2969.21(E).
       {¶ 20} Substantial compliance with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C)
is not sufficient. State ex rel. McGlown v. Mohr, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-478, 2015-Ohio-
1554, ¶ 9, citing State ex rel. Manns v. Henson, 119 Ohio St.3d 348, 2008-Ohio-4478, ¶ 4;
State ex rel. Neil v. French, 153 Ohio St.3d 271, 2018-Ohio-2692, ¶ 7. Nor can a deficiency
in compliance with the statutory requirements present at the time of the filing of the
complaint be cured at a later date. State ex rel. Swopes v. McCormick, __ Ohio St.3d. __,
2022-Ohio-4408, ¶ 14 (stating that “all avenues for curing a failure to comply with
R.C. 2969.25” were “expressly foreclosed”) (Emphasis sic.)); State ex rel. Young v.
Clipper, 142 Ohio St.3d 318, 2015-Ohio-1351, ¶ 9 (stating that failure to comply with the
mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25 “is not curable by subsequent amendment” and
that a “belated attempt to file an affidavit that complies with R.C. 2969.25 does not excuse
the noncompliance”); Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211, 2003-Ohio-5533, ¶ 9; Boles
at ¶ 2. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that a court does not err by sua
sponte dismissing a complaint for failing to comply with the inmate filing requirements
in R.C. 2969.25. State ex rel. Bey v. Bur. of Sentence Computation, 166 Ohio St.3d 497,
2022-Ohio-236, ¶ 19; State ex rel. Watkins v. Andrews, 142 Ohio St.3d 308, 2015-Ohio-
1100, ¶ 8; State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, 140 Ohio St.3d 297, 2014-Ohio-3735, ¶ 5.
       {¶ 21} Here, because petitioner is in actual confinement in a county jail, petitioner
is an inmate as that term is defined in R.C. 2969.21(D). See Williams v. Fischer, 2d Dist.
Greene No. 2007-CA-55, 2007-Ohio-5878, ¶ 9, quoting R.C. 2969.21(D) (stating in a
habeas corpus action that “[t]hough [the petitioner] had been a parolee prior to his arrest
by the Xenia Police and incarceration in the Greene County Jail, he was an inmate at the
time he filed his petition because he was ‘in actual confinement * * * in a county,
multicounty, municipal, municipal-county, or multicounty-municipal jail’ ”); State v.
Williams, 12th Dist. No. CA2005-11-030, 2006-Ohio-5660, ¶ 17, fn. 1 (stating that “R.C.
2969.21(D) defines an ‘inmate’ as ‘a person who is in actual confinement,’ and specifically
includes a county jail”); State ex rel. Rohrig v. Turner, 10th Dist. No. 23AP-452, 2023-
Ohio-4279. Furthermore, this action in habeas corpus is a civil action as that term is
defined in R.C. 2969.21(B). See Fuqua at paragraph one of the syllabus (“A habeas corpus
No. 23AP-685                                                                                            9

action is a civil action and therefore the provisions of R.C. 2969.21 through 2969.27 are
applicable to such action.”).
        {¶ 22} On September 21, 2023, prior to the filing of this habeas corpus action,
petitioner filed a complaint in this court in Case No. 23AP-562 requesting a writ of
mandamus/procedendo, or, in the alternative, a writ of habeas corpus.3 Petitioner has
failed to provide an affidavit of prior civil actions in this action. See State ex rel. McGrath
v. McDonnell, 126 Ohio St.3d 511, 2010-Ohio-4726, ¶ 3 (stating that a “mandamus case is
a civil case for purposes of R.C. 2969.21(B)(1)(a), which addresses inmate actions against
government entities”); State ex rel. Bey v. [Ohio] Bur. of Sentence Computation, 10th
Dist. No. 19AP-46, 2021-Ohio-70, ¶ 10, aff’d 166 Ohio St.3d 497, 2022-Ohio-236; Fuqua
at ¶ 7 (stating that “under Ohio law, state writ actions are civil actions.”). Because
petitioner has failed to provide an affidavit listing his prior civil action in Case No. 23AP-
562 that was filed in the previous five years, his petition is subject to dismissal for failure
to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A). Westerfield v. Bracy, 171 Ohio St.3d 803, 2023-Ohio-
499, ¶ 9 (stating that “[a]n affidavit that lists some, but not all, prior actions does not
comply with R.C. 2969.25(A)”).
        {¶ 23} Additionally, regardless of any issue concerning compliance with
R.C. 2969.25(A), petitioner has not provided an affidavit of indigency in compliance with
R.C. 2969.25(C). Hayes has not paid the filing fee for the commencement of this habeas
corpus action. The financial disclosure form submitted by petitioner with his habeas
corpus petition does not contain a “statement that sets forth the balance in the inmate
account of the inmate for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional
cashier” as required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). See R.C. 2969.21(E) (defining “inmate
account” to include an “account maintained by a sheriff or any other administrator of a
jail”). The Supreme Court of Ohio has “affirmed dismissals of inmate actions when the
inmate had failed to submit the account statement required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1).” State
ex rel. Roden v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 159 Ohio St.3d 314, 2020-Ohio-408, ¶ 8.
See State ex rel. Muhammad v. State, 133 Ohio St.3d 508, 2012-Ohio-4767, ¶ 2. Thus,

3 Petitioner named the state of Ohio in the caption of his complaint in Case No. 23AP-562. Petitioner also

named the Honorable Karen Phipps, judge of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, General
Division, in the body of the complaint.
No. 23AP-685                                                                                             10

petitioner’s habeas corpus petition is also subject to dismissal for failing to comply with
R.C. 2969.25(C).
        {¶ 24} Because petitioner has failed to fully comply with the inmate filing
requirements in R.C. 2969.25, this action must be dismissed. Westerfield at ¶ 10; Roden
at ¶ 8; McGlown, 2015-Ohio-1554, at ¶ 9. Finally, although petitioner’s action must be
dismissed for failing to comply with R.C. 2969.25, it is noted that “a dismissal for failure
to meet the requirements of R.C. 2969.25 is not a dismissal on the merits.” (Emphasis
added.) Watkins, 2015-Ohio-1100, at ¶ 8, citing Hall, 2014-Ohio-3735, at ¶ 5.
        {¶ 25} Accordingly, it is the decision and recommendation of the magistrate that
petitioner’s habeas corpus petition should be dismissed sua sponte. Petitioner’s
November 20, 2023 “Motion For Supplemental Pleading of Injunction” is therefore
rendered moot.4 Furthermore, to the extent petitioner’s November 20, 2023 document
captioned “Preliminary or Mandatory Injunction” is construed as a motion, such motion
is rendered moot.
                                                     /S/ MAGISTRATE
                                                     JOSEPH E. WENGER IV

                                   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). A party may file written objections to the
                magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the
                decision.

4 See also Wright v. Ghee, 74 Ohio St.3d 465, 466 (1996) (affirming “court of appeals’ dismissal of the

complaint for declaratory judgment and injunction, as courts of appeals lack jurisdiction in these causes”).