State ex rel. Lanham v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

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 St.3d
___.]
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.

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.

12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.

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. 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

2

prove no set of 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.

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.

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.

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

3

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,
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.).

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.).

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-

4

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.

5