State ex rel. Lanham v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

80 Ohio St.3d 425

.]




       THE STATE EX REL. LANHAM v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY.
        THE STATE EX REL. PARKS v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY.
        THE STATE EX REL. DEJUTE v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY.
         THE STATE EX REL. HALL v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY.
        THE STATE EX REL. URBAN v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY.
        THE STATE EX REL. FELVER v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY.
       THE STATE EX REL. THOMAS v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY.
      THE STATE EX REL. AMBROSIA V. OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY.
         THE STATE EX REL. SEES v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY.
      THE STATE EX REL. CHAPPELL v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY.
       THE STATE EX REL. SALYERS v. OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY.
   [Cite as State ex rel. Lanham v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 

1997-Ohio-104

.]
Quo warranto and mandamus to compel Ohio Adult Parole Authority to cease
        and desist certain actions and to perform other actions—Causes
        dismissed, when.
(Nos. 97-1358, 97-1393, 97-1398, 97-1402, 97-1415, 97-1447, 97-1460, 97-1494,
     97-1568, 97-1717 and 97-1745—Submitted October 20, 1997—Decided
                                  December 24, 1997.)
                         IN QUO WARRANTO and MANDAMUS.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Relators, inmates at Marion Correctional Institution, filed identical
actions for writs of quo warranto or, in the alternative, writs of mandamus, to
compel respondent, Ohio Adult Parole Authority (“APA”), to “cease and desist”
certain actions and to perform other actions. In all but one of the cases, State ex
rel. Urban v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., case No. 97-1415, the APA filed a Civ.R.
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
       {¶ 2} These causes are now before the court for a determination pursuant to
S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5).
                               __________________
       William G. Lanham, Jr., pro se.
       Robert Parks, pro se.
       Joseph A. DeJute, pro se.
       Donald Hall, pro se.
       Anthony C. Urban, pro se.
       Carl W. Felver, pro se.
       Dale E. Thomas, pro se.
       Ronald Ambrosia, pro se.
       Daniel Sees, pro se.
       Matthew J. Chappell, pro se.
       Timothy Salyers, pro se.
       Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and C. Matthew Cooper, Assistant
Attorney General, for respondent in all cases but No. 97-1415.
                               __________________
       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 3} S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5) provides that in original actions other than habeas
corpus filed here, “[a]fter the time for filing an answer or a motion to dismiss, the
Supreme Court will either dismiss the case or issue an alternative or peremptory
writ, if a writ has not already been issued.” Dismissal of a complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted is appropriate if, after all factual
allegations of the complaint are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are
made in relators’ favor, it appears beyond doubt that relators can prove no set of




                                          2
                                  January Term, 1997




facts warranting relief. State ex rel. Bowman v. Columbiana Cty. Bd. of Commrs.
(1997), 

77 Ohio St.3d 398, 399

, 

674 N.E.2d 694

, 695.
        {¶ 4} For the reasons that follow, we dismiss these actions. First, relators
are not entitled to the requested writs of quo warranto because although they
challenge the qualifications of APA members, they do not claim entitlement to APA
membership. State ex rel. Fenwick v. Finkbeiner (1995), 

72 Ohio St.3d 457, 460

,

650 N.E.2d 896, 898

 (“[A] quo warranto claim may be brought by someone other
than the Attorney General or a prosecuting attorney only when that person claims
title to the office.”); State ex rel. Annable v. Stokes (1970), 

24 Ohio St.2d 32

, 

53 O.O.2d 18

, 

262 N.E.2d 863

.
        {¶ 5} Second, relators’ alternative requests for writs of mandamus to
compel the APA to “cease and desist” certain allegedly illegal actions also lack
merit. “‘Where a petition filed in the Supreme Court or in the Court of Appeals is
in the form of a proceeding in mandamus but the substance of the allegations makes
it manifest that the real object of the relator is for [a] [prohibitory] injunction, * * *
the action must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.’” State ex rel. Governor v.
Taft (1994), 

71 Ohio St.3d 1, 3

, 

640 N.E.2d 1136, 1137-1138

, quoting State ex rel.
Pressley v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 

11 Ohio St.3d 141

, 

40 O.O.2d 141

, 

228 N.E.2d 631

, paragraph four of the syllabus. We thus lack original jurisdiction to grant
relators’ request for prohibitory injunctive relief. State ex rel. Crabtree v. Franklin
Cty. Bd. of Health (1997), 

77 Ohio St.3d 247, 248

, 

673 N.E.2d 1281, 1283

.
        {¶ 6} Third, relators’ claims for correction of their prison records based on
R.C. 5145.01 and 5145.02, the good-time credit provisions of former R.C. 2967.19,
and the APA’s risk assessment/aggregate scoresheets, are likewise meritless. See,
e.g., Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex (1979), 

442 U.S. 1, 7

, 

99 S.Ct. 2100, 2104

, 

60 L.Ed.2d 668, 675

 (no constitutional or inherent
right to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence); State
ex rel. Hattie v. Goldhardt (1994), 

69 Ohio St.3d 123, 125-126

, 

630 N.E.2d 696

,




                                            3
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




698 (APA parole decision is discretionary and APA scoresheet is an internal
guideline which neither alters discretionary nature of parole decision nor creates a
constitutionally protected liberty interest.); Pryor v. State (Dec. 12, 1996), Franklin
App. No. 96APE05-653, unreported, 

1996 WL 715470

 (“R.C. 5145.01 and 5145.02
create no legal duty on the part of the parole authority to release a prisoner before
he has served the maximum term provided in his sentence.”); Elkins v. Holland
(Mar. 23, 1995), Allen App. No. 1-94-83, unreported, 

1995 WL 141514

 (Former
R.C. 2967.19 does not reduce the maximum term of an indeterminate sentence.).
       {¶ 7} Finally, relators’ remaining claim is for certain information, i.e.,
qualifications of APA members, rather than specific records. State ex rel. Thomas
v. Ohio State Univ. (1994), 

70 Ohio St.3d 1438

, 

638 N.E.2d 1041

, citing State ex
rel. Fant v. Tober (Apr. 28, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 63737, unreported, 

1993 WL 173743

 (“[R]elator’s request for mandamus relief is denied to the extent that
his public records request broadly sought respondents to search for records
containing selected information.”). Further, the APA has now provided most of the
relators with this information. See State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder
(1996), 

76 Ohio St.3d 580, 580-581

, 

669 N.E.2d 835, 837

 (A court can take judicial
notice of facts indicating mootness of public records action in S.Ct.Prac.R. X[5]
determination.).
       {¶ 8} Based on the foregoing, it appears beyond doubt that relators are not
entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in quo warranto and mandamus.
Accordingly, we grant respondent’s motions in case Nos. 97-1358, 97-1393, 97-
1398, 97-1402, 97-1447, 97-1460, 97-1494, 97-1568, 97-1717, and 97-1745, and
dismiss the causes. We also dismiss case No. 97-1415 sua sponte.
                                                                   Causes dismissed.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                               __________________



                                          4