State ex rel. Peeples v. Anderson, 95-525

• Decision Date: 30 August 1995
• Docket Number: No. 95-525,95-525
• Citation: 653 N.E.2d 371,73 Ohio St.3d 559
• Parties: The STATE ex rel. PEEPLES, Appellant, v. ANDERSON, Warden.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 559

73 Ohio St.3d 559

653 N.E.2d 371

The STATE ex rel. PEEPLES, Appellant, v. ANDERSON, Warden.

No. 95-525.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted June 6, 1995.

Decided Aug. 30, 1995.

On February 8, 1995, appellant, Kavin Lee Peeples, an inmate at Mansfield Correctional Institution ("MCI"), filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Richland County seeking a writ of mandamus against appellee, Warden Carl Anderson. According to Peeples's complaint, he was attacked by another inmate whom prison guards had failed to restrain. As a result of the attack, Peeples was exposed to the inmate's blood. The other inmate had tested positive for the human immunodeficiency virus ("HIV"). Peeples further alleged that prison officials denied his request for periodic HIV testing because he refused to make a statement that he is homosexual or had engaged in voluntary activities during which he could have contracted the virus.

Peeples requested that the court of appeals grant a writ of mandamus compelling the warden to (1) periodically test Peeples for HIV, (2) monitor Peeples's health on a regular basis, (3) investigate the incident involving his attack, (4) report the incident to the "Public Health and Human Services," and (5) impose adequate safeguards to prevent violent HIV-positive inmates from infecting other inmates. On the same date that he filed his mandamus action, Peeples filed an affidavit of indigency in which he alleged that he lacked money to secure the costs and expenses of prosecuting his complaint for a writ of mandamus.

On February 23, 1995, the court of appeals sua sponte dismissed Peeples's mandamus action and denied his request for funds to prosecute the cause. The court of appeals subsequently overruled Peeples's "motion to suspend cost due to indigency" on the basis that the case had already been dismissed.

The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.

Kavin Lee Peeples, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

In his first proposition of law, Peeples contends that federal constitutional rights to due process and prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment require prison officials to provide prisoners with medical tests which are reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis of infectious diseases where there is evidence of possible transmission during a prison altercation.

While sua sponte dismissal of a complaint without notice is generally inappropriate, it is proper where the complaint is frivolous or the claimant obviously cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint. See State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 106, 108, 647 N.E.2d 799, 801, citing Baker v. Dir., U.S. Parole Comm. (C.A.D.C.1990), 916 F.2d 725, and English v. Cowell (C.A.7, 1993), 10 F.3d 434.

The court of appeals dismissed Peeples's mandamus action on the sole basis that his complaint requested no relief. The court's rationale was erroneous because Peeples's complaint manifestly requested a writ of mandamus compelling Warden Anderson to order specific acts, including periodic testing of Peeples for HIV.

However, a reviewing court is not authorized to reverse a correct judgment merely because erroneous reasons were assigned as a basis thereof. State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 217, 222, 631 N.E.2d 150, 154. A writ of mandamus will not be issued where there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. R.C. 2731.05. A civil rights action under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.Code constitutes an adequate legal remedy which precludes extraordinary relief where state prisoners challenge the conditions of their confinement and their claims are limited to alleged violation of their federal constitutional and statutory rights. State ex rel. Carter v. Schotten (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 89, 91-92, 637 N.E.2d 306, 309. Section 1983 constitutes an adequate remedy, since it can provide...