Saini v. Cook
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Saini v. Cook, 2016-Ohio-8067.] COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PARDEEP SINGH SAINI SOUTHEASTERN CORR. INST. Petitioner -vsBRIAN COOK, WARDEN SOUTHEASTERN CORR. INST. Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : JUDGES: Hon., William B. Hoffman P.J. Hon., Sheila G. Farmer J. Hon., Patricia A. Delaney, J. Case No. 15-CA-58 OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Habeas Corpus JUDGMENT: Dismissed DATE OF JUDGMENT: December 2, 2016 APPEARANCES: For Relator: Pro Se For Respondent: Pardeep Saini #687093 Southeastern Correctional Inst. 5900 BIS Rd. Lancaster, Ohio 43130 Michael DeWine Ohio Attorney General Maura O’Neill Jaite (0058524) Senior Assistant Attorney General Ohio Attorney General’s Office Criminal Justice Section 150 East Gay Street, 16th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Fairfield County, Case No. 15-58 2 Hoffman, J. {¶1} Petitioner Pardeep Singh Saini has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus claiming he is entitled to release from prison because (1) his right to counsel was violated, and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may granted and in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment. {¶2} Respondent avers Petitioner has presented a materially false affidavit of prior civil actions. R.C. 2969.25 requires an incarcerated litigant to file an affidavit detailing all civil actions filed within the last five years. The affidavit presented by Petitioner fails to include a prior case Petitioner initiated in this Court. Further, Respondent maintains Petitioner has also filed a federal habeas action which was not included in the affidavit. Although the affidavit is incomplete, we will address the merits of the petition. {¶3} All of the claims raised by Petitioner are couched in terms of the denial of counsel and ineffective assistance of counsel. {¶4} The Supreme Court has explained neither “[c]laims involving the ineffective assistance of counsel [nor] the alleged denial of the right to counsel are . . . cognizable in habeas corpus,” Bozsik v. Hudson, 110 Ohio St.3d 245, 2006-Ohio-4356, 852 N.E.2d 1200, ¶ 7. {¶5} Because the claims raised by Petitioner are not cognizable in habeas corpus, we grant the motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fairfield County, Case No. 15-58 By Hoffman, P. J. Farmer, J. and Delaney, J. concur. 3 [Cite as Saini v. Cook, 2016-Ohio-8067.]
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.
