State v. Troupe
| Decision Date | 11 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 109471,109471 |
| Citation | 2020 Ohio 931 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, Respondent, v. JAMES B. TROUPE, Petitioner. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Writ of Habeas Corpus
Appearances:
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.
James B. Troupe, pro se.
{¶ 1} Petitioner, James B. Troupe, seeks a writ of habeas corpus. He asserts that the criminal charges pending against him in an unspecified case should be dismissed. Sua sponte, the petition is dismissed based on numerous procedural defects.
{¶ 2} On February 5, 2020, Troupe filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition does not name as respondent an official or agency that has custody over Troupe. Instead, the petition lists only the state of Ohio as the "plaintiff-appellee," and Troupe as the "defendant-appellant." As a result, it is unclear to whom service of the petition should be made because Troupe also did not include any addresses in the case caption. A certificate of service attached to the petition indicates only that the petition was served on the Eighth District Court of Appeals.
{¶ 3} In the petition, Troupe alleges that he is being prosecuted for charges relating to human trafficking and compelling and promoting prostitution in an unspecified criminal case. In his petition, he asserts claims of selective and vindictive prosecution. Troupe asks this court to "rule in this case before the defendant is wrongly convicted." (Petition at unnumbered page 4.)
{¶ 4} "A writ of habeas corpus is warranted in certain circumstances when 'there is an unlawful restraint of a person's liberty and there is no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.'" State ex rel. Norris v. Wainwright, 158 Ohio St.3d 20, 2019-Ohio-4138, 139 N.E.3d 867, ¶ 5, quoting Pegan v. Crawmer, 76 Ohio St.3d 97, 99, 666 N.E.2d 1091 (1996). A petition for a writ of habeas corpus constitutes a request for extraordinary relief and has certain procedural requirements that must be met or it is subject to dismissal. Al'Shahid v. Cook, 144 Ohio St.3d 15, 2015-Ohio-2079, 40 N.E.3d 1073, ¶ 7-9.
{¶ 5} Civ.R. 10(A) requires the caption of a complaint to include the names and addresses of the parties. This rule is applicable to petitions for writ of habeas corpus. Greene v. Turner, 151 Ohio St.3d 513, 2017-Ohio-8305, 90 N.E.3d 901, ¶ 8, citing Kneuss v. Sloan, 146 Ohio St.3d 248, 2016-Ohio-3310, 54 N.E.3d 1242, ¶ 11; and State ex rel. Sherrills v. State, 91 Ohio St.3d 133, 742 N.E.2d 651 (2001). The failure to include the addresses of the parties in the case caption is sufficient grounds for dismissal. Id. at ¶ 8, 11.
{¶ 6} Troupe's petition fails to include any addresses in the caption. Further, the petition fails to properly inform this court or the clerk of courts to whom the petition should be served because the petition fails to name a proper respondent. These fatal procedural defects require dismissal.
{¶ 7} Additionally, R.C. 2725.04 governs the means by which an individual may seek relief in habeas corpus in the state courts of Ohio.1 The statute requires a verified petition that specifies:
{¶ 8} Troupe's petition is not verified and he has failed to comply with R.C. 2725.04(B)-(D). The failure to name the officer or person who is charged with Troupe's custody is sufficient grounds to dismiss the petition. Nash v. Mason, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84250, 2004-Ohio-1686, ¶ 6. The failure to include the commitment papers or cause of detention, and the failure to verify the petition is also sufficient grounds for dismissal. Davis v. Sheldon, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-436, ¶ 8.
{¶ 9} The present petition fails to name a proper party as respondent, does not indicate who has custody of Troupe, or even where Troupe is currently incarcerated. Troupe also has failed to attach anything to his petition, including his commitment papers. The failure to comply with these basic requirements of R.C. 2725.04 necessitates dismissal. In re Evans, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108316, 2019-Ohio-1129, ¶ 7.
{¶ 10} Finally, an inmate instituting an action against a state governmental agency or employee must also comply with R.C. 2969.25. The failure to do so warrants dismissal of the action. Greene, 151 Ohio St.3d 513, 2017-Ohio-8305, 90 N.E.3d 901, at ¶ 5. "Inmate" is defined as, among other things, one incarcerated in county jail. R.C. 2969.21(D). Troupe's petition does not state where he isincarcerated or even if he is incarcerated, but if he is currently incarcerated in county jail pending trial, then R.C. 2969.25 is applicable to him. State ex rel. Campbell v. Russo, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95463, 2010-Ohio-4369; State v. Evans, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29485, 2019-Ohio-3347, ¶ 3.
{¶ 11} R.C. 2969.25(A) requires an inmate to include an affidavit detailing all prior civil actions or appeals of civil actions the inmate has filed in any state or federal court within the preceding five years. For inmates wishing to waive the filing fee, R.C. 2969.25(C) requires the attachment of an affidavit of waiver and affidavit of indigency that sets forth the balance in the inmate account for each of the preceding six months as certified by the institutional cashier. Troupe did not attach any affidavits to his petition.
{¶ 12} A court may sua sponte dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus when it does not contain "a facially valid claim." Al'Shahid, 144 Ohio St.3d 15, 2015-Ohio-2079, 40 N.E.3d 1073, at ¶ 7. The failure to comply with the barest procedural requirements of R.C. 2725.04, Civ.R. 10(A), and R.C. 2969.25 means that Troupe has not presented a facially valid claim. Evans, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108316,...
To continue reading
Request your trial