Rayford v. Shaffer

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Rayford v. Shaffer, 2010-Ohio-784.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94629 GEORGE RAYFORD RELATOR vs. WARDEN SHAFFER RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: PETITION DISMISSED Writ of Habeas Corpus Order No. 431061 RELEASE DATE: FOR RELATOR March 3, 2010 2 George Rayford, pro se S.O. #Inmate 0231024 Cuyahoga County Jail P.O. Box 5600 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.: George Rayford, the petitioner, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For the following reasons, we sua sponte dismiss Rayford s petition for a writ of habeas corpus Rayford s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is procedurally defective for the following reasons: (1) petition fails to contain a sworn and notarized affidavit that complies with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a); (2) petition fails to contain a sworn and notarized affidavit of indigency; 3 (3) petition fails to contain a statement that sets forth balance in inmates account for the preceding six months and/or all of the cash and things of value owned by the inmate, as required by R.C. 2969.25; (4) petition fails to contain a sworn and notarized affidavit that describes each civil action or appeal filed within the previous five years in any state or federal court; and (5) petition fails to contain copies of all pertinent commitment papers as required by R.C. 2725.04(D). See Tisdale v. Eberlin, 114 Ohio St.3d 201, 2007-Ohio-3833, 870 N.E.2d 1191; Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 2001-Ohio-49, 744 N.E.2d 763. See, also, State ex rel. Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d 124, 2009-Ohio-4688, 914 N.E.2d 402; Martin v. Woods, 121 Ohio St.3d 609, 2009-Ohio-1928, 906 N.E.2d 1113; Humphrey v. Ohio Water Parks, Inc. (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 403, 646 N.E.2d 908; State ex rel. Davis, Cuyahoga App. No. 90533, 2008-Ohio-584; Morris v. Bureau of Sentence Computation, Cuyahoga App. No. 89517, 2007-Ohio-1444; State ex rel. McKay v. Corrigan, Cuyahoga App. No. 88340. It must also be noted that Rayford s petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Habeas corpus is not available to challenge the validity of a charging instrument. Shroyer v. Banks, 123 Ohio St.3d 88, 4 2009-Ohio-4080, 914 N.E.2d 368; McCuller v. Hudson, 121 Ohio St.3d 168, 2009-Ohio-721, 902 N.E.2d 979. Accordingly, we sua sponte dismiss Rayford s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Costs to Rayford. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of appeals serve notice of this judgment upon all parties as required by Civ.R. 58(B). Petition dismissed. MARY EILEEN KILBANE, PRESIDING JUDGE ANN DYKE, J., and LARRY A. JONES, J., CONCUR

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.