COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 79490 JO ANNE BOWLES, : : PETITION FOR WRIT OF Petitioner : HABEAS CORPUS : -vs- : JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION : NORMAN ROSE, WARDEN N.P.C., : MOTION NO. 27645 : Respondent : DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: MAY 29, 2001 JUDGMENT: DISMISSED. APPEARANCES: For Petitioner: Paul Mancino, Jr., Esq. 75 Public Square, Suite 1016 Cleveland, Ohio 44113-2098 For Respondent: Betty D. Montgomery, Esq. Attorney General of Ohio BY: M. Scott Criss, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Corrections Litigation Section 140 East Town Street, 14th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-6001 -2- MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J.: Petitioner avers that she is in the custody of respondent, warden of the Northeast Prerelease Center, in Cleveland. Petitioner also avers that she remains in custody because the state has not deducted the jail time credit from her release date. Petitioner requests that this court issue a writ of habeas corpus and, as relief, order her immediate release. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition and petitioner has filed a brief in opposition. For the reasons stated below, we grant respondent's motion to dismiss. R.C. 2725.04(D) provides, in part: Application for the writ of habeas corpus shall be by petition, signed and verified either by the party for whose relief it is intended, or by some person for him, and shall specify: *** (D) A copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such person shall be exhibited, if it can be procured without impairing the efficiency of the remedy ***. Respondent correctly observes that, in spite of the fact that petitioner bases her claim exclusively on the propriety of the state's application of jail time credit, petitioner has failed to attach copies of the commitment papers to the petition. That is, respondent notes that petitioner has not attached to the petition copies of the judgment entries imposing the sentences and allowing for jail time credit in petitioner's numerous cases. Attached to the petition are copies of correspondence as well as various documents titled update/correction of inmate file purportedly prepared by the state's Records Management Bureau. -3- Petitioner argues that these materials are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2725.04(D). In McBroom v. Russell (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 47, 671 N.E.2d 10, the Supreme Court concluded: In addition, McBroom failed to attach a copy of his trial court's sentencing order, in violation of R.C. 2725.04(D). Brown v. Rogers (1995), 72 Ohio St. 3d 339, 341, 650 N.E.2d 422, 423, quoting Bloss v. Rogers (1992), 65 Ohio St. 3d 145, 146, 602 N.E.2d 602, 602 ("These commitment papers are necessary for a complete understanding of the petition. Without them, the petition is fatally defective. When a petition is presented to a court that does not comply with R.C. 2725.04(D), there is no showing of how the commitment was procured and there is nothing before the court on which to make a determined judgment except, of course, the bare allegations of petitioner's application.'"). *** Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed the petition. Id. at 48. See, also, State ex rel. Eppinger v. Konteh (June 18, 1999), Trumbull App. No. 99-T-0047, unreported (motion to dismiss of the respondent, warden of the Trumbull Correctional Institution, granted where petitioner did not attach copies of the judgment entries which state the terms of his sentences and the amount of his jail-time credit). Likewise, in this action, petitioner's failure to attach copies of the judgment entries imposing the sentences and allowing for jail time credit in petitioner's numerous cases requires that we grant respondent's motion to dismiss. Respondent also correctly observes that petitioner has failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25 which requires an affidavit that describes each civil action or appeal filed by the relator within the previous five years in any state or federal court. State ex -4- rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Board (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 696 N.E.2d 594; State ex rel. Alford v. Winters (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 285, 685 N.E.2d 1242. In Re: Woods (Apr. 26, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 79467, unreported, at 1-2, quoted in Clark v. State (May 17, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 79584, unreported (dismissing a petition in habeas corpus sua sponte for failing to: attach the cause of detention; support the petition with an affidavit complying with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a); and comply with R.C. 2969.25). Petitioner's failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 is a sufficient basis for dismissing the petition. As was the case in Clark,petitioner has also failed to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). Petitioner's affidavit states: That she is the petitioner in the within action, that all of the statements contained in the foregoing petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus are trues [sic]. In State ex rel. Novak v. Mahon (Jan. 11, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 78505, unreported, this court granted the respondent's motion to dismiss an action in prohibition. Additionally, relator's affidavit accompanies the complaint. Relator merely avers that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my belief and knowledge. A petition for a writ of mandamus "must contain the specific statements of fact upon which the claim of illegality is based and must be supported by an affidavit from the plaintiff or relator specifying the details of the claim. Absent such detail and attachments, the complaint is subject to dismissal." Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a); State ex rel. Key v. Court of Common Pleas (Jan. 9, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 71680, unreported. In the case sub judice, relator has not set forth any facts in the petition which detail -5- his claim. *** Relator has not supplied any facts relating to his own particular situation. Nor has relator set forth any facts which specify the details of his claim in the affidavit attached to the petition. State ex rel. Pecsi v. Jones (Mar. 16, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 77464, unreported, at 2-3. By its terms, the requirement of filing an affidavit set forth in Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) applies to actions in prohibition and all original actions. As was the case in Pecsi, relator in this action has not specified the details of his claim. See also State ex rel. White v. Suster (Aug. 3, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 77894, unreported. The absence of an affidavit specifying the details of the claim is a sufficient basis for denying relief in prohibition. Id.at 5-6. Obviously, petitioner's affidavit does not specify the details of her claim. As a consequence, her failure to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) is a sufficient basis for dismissing this action in habeas corpus. Accordingly, we grant respondent's motion to dismiss. Petitioner to pay costs. The clerk is directed to serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B). Writ dismissed. ______________________________ MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN JUDGE KARPINSKI, A.J., and ROCCO, J., CONCUR. .