Johnson v. Haviland
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Johnson v. Haviland, 2006-Ohio-1136.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO FREDERICK E. JOHNSON : Plaintiff- Appellant : C.A. Case No. 21067 vs. : T.C. Case No. 05-CV-1996 JAMES HAVILAND, WARDEN : : (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellee : ........... OPINION Rendered on the 10th day of March , 2006. ........... FREDERICK E. JOHNSON, #A162-761, P.O. Box 45699, Lucasville, Ohio 45699-0001 Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se JIM PETRO, Ohio Attorney General, By: DIANE MALLORY, Asst. Attorney General, Atty. Reg. #0014867, Corrections Litigation Section, 150 E. Gay Street, 16th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee ............. FAIN, J. {¶ 1} Petitioner-appellant Frederick E. Johnson appeals from the denial of his petition {¶ 2} for a writ of habeas corpus, filed in the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court. {¶ 3} Johnson, who has filed his brief pro se, has not set forth assignments of 2 error pursuant to App. R. 16(A)(3), but it is apparent from his brief that Johnson is contending that the Ohio Adult Parole Authority has erred in its determination of the time or times when he is eligible for parole consideration, and that the trial court erred in rejecting his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. {¶ 4} Johnson is incarcerated in the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, located in Scioto County. The trial court, in denying his petition, not only found that there was no merit to his petition, but also that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition. {¶ 5} R.C. 2725.03 provides that: If a person restrained of his liberty is an inmate of a state *** correctional institution, *** no court or judge other than the courts or judges of the county in which the institution is located has jurisdiction to issue or determine a writ of habeas corpus for his production or discharge. {¶ 6} Because we agree with the trial court and the respondent that the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court lacked jurisdiction to consider Johnson s petition, the judgment of the trial court denying Johnson s petition is Affirmed. ........... BROGAN and DONOVAN, JJ., concur. Copies mailed to: Frederick E. Johnson Diane Mallory Hon. Barbara P. Gorman
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.
