COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 83025 CHARLES J. JULIANO : ORIGINAL ACTION : : JOURNAL ENTRY Relator : AND : OPINION vs. : : GERALD T. MCFAUL, SHERIFF : : Respondent : DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: JULY 8, 2003 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS JUDGMENT: Writ Dismissed Motion No. 350047 APPEARANCES: For Relator: CHARLES J. JULIANO, PRO SE Inmate No. 019-544 Cuyahoga County Jail P. O. BOX 5600 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Respondent: WILLIAM D. MASON, ESQ. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Justice Center - 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.: On June 12, 2003, relator, Charles J. Juliano, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus asking this court to inquire into his illegal solitary confinement at the Cuyahoga County Jail and the conditions of the jail which, Juliano claims are adversely affecting his health. For the following reasons, we sua sponte dismiss the petition. Initially, we note that the petition is insufficient to maintain an action in habeas corpus. Juliano's failure to attach a copy of his commitment papers in accordance with R.C. 2725.04(D) requires dismissal of his petition. State ex rel. Wynn v. McFaul (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 193, 690 N.E.2d 7; Boyd v. Money (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 388, 696 N.E.2d 568; Bloss v. Rogers (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 602 N.E.2d 602. We also note that Juliano failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25 which requires that he attach an affidavit that describes each civil action or appeal filed by the relator within the previous five years in any state or federal court. Juliano 's failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 is sufficient basis for dismissing the petition. State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd. (1988), 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, at 1-2, quoted in Clark v. State (May 17, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 79584. -3- Nevertheless, complaints regarding conditions of confinement are not cognizable through actions in habeas corpus. See Jones v. Engle (Oct. 22, 1979), Ross App. No. 698. We further note that state prisoners challenging conditions of their confinement have an adequate remedy by way of an action under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S. Code. See State ex rel. Carter v. Schotten (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 89, 637 N.E.2d 306. Accordingly, we dismiss this action sua sponte. Relator to pay costs. The clerk is directed to serve notice of this judgment upon all parties as provided in Civ.R. 58(B). Writ dismissed. SEAN C. GALLAGHER JUDGE FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., CONCURS COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., CONCURS .