Ohio Supreme Court, 1999

State ex rel. Hogan v. Ghee

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided March 31, 1999 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

85 Ohio St. 3d 150; 707 N.E.2d 494

Cases that cite this one

25 later published cases cite this decision.

Lindsay v. North Central Correctional Complex (District Court, N.D. Ohio 2025)
State ex rel. Kushlak v. Cleveland Animal Protective League (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
State ex rel. Crenshaw v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
State ex rel. Hemmons v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)
State v. Rockwell, 2008-Ca-00009 (4-28-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
State v. Smith, Ct2007-0073 (6-30-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
State v. Clark (Ohio 2008)
State v. Aleshire, 2007-Ca-1 (8-29-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
Cleveland Fire Fighters v. Jackson, Unpublished Decision (2-22-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
State Ex Rel. McGrath v. Gilligan, Unpublished Decision (2-16-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
State Ex Rel. Mackey v. Blackwell, Unpublished Decision (12-22-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
State Ex Rel. Moore v. Ohio Apa., Unpublished Decision (4-10-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
State Ex Rel. Siemientkowski v. Gallagher, Unpublished Decision (7-3-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
State ex rel. Denton v. Bedinghaus (Ohio 2003)
Dussell v. Lakewood Police Department, Unpublished Decision (12-5-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State Ex Rel. Poole v. Barkollo, Unpublished Decision (5-14-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State ex rel. Miller v. Leonard (Ohio 2000)
State ex rel. Recker v. Leonard (Ohio 2000)
State ex rel. Recker v. Leonard (Ohio 2000)
State ex rel. Miller v. Leonard (Ohio 2000)
State v. Cole, Unpublished Decision (6-16-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Oapa, Unpublished Decision (7-13-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
Viceroy v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitaion, Unpublished Decision (10-17-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
Wilson v. Hardy, Unpublished Decision (8-28-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
Sims v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, Unpublished Decision (11-29-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Hogan asserts in his propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his mandamus action and denying his motion for declaratory judgment. For the following reasons, Hogan’s assertions lack merit.

First, to the extent that Hogan claimed that he was entitled to be released from prison, habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, was the proper action. State ex rel. Johnson v. Bettman (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 61, 701 N.E.2d 994, 995.

Second, “ ‘[t]here is no constitutional or inherent right * * * to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence.’ ” State ex rel. Hattie v. Goldhardt (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 123, 125, 630 N.E.2d 696, 698, quoting Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex (1979), 442 U.S. 1, 7, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2104, 60 L.Ed.2d 668, 675. Hogan consequently had no right to be released before the expiration of his sentence.

Third, Hogan has an adequate legal remedy by filing a Section 1983 federal civil rights action in either federal district court or state common pleas court to raise his claim that Ghee and the APA denied his parole in retaliation for his litigation against prison officials. See State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 447, 449-450, 663 N.E.2d 639, 642; State ex rel. Peeples v. Anderson (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 559, 560-561, 653 N.E.2d 371, 373; see, also, Johnson v. Rodriguez (C.A.5, 1997), 110 F.3d 299. Here, Hogan essentially *152conceded that Section 1983 provided an adequate legal remedy for his claims. Cf. Hattie v. Anderson (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 232, 626 N.E.2d 67.

Finally, the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over Hogan’s declaratory judgment motion. Wright v. Ghee (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 465, 466, 659 N.E.2d 1261, 1262; State ex rel. Natl. Electrical Contractors Assn. v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv. (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 179, 180-181, 699 N.E.2d 64, 66; Section 3(B)(1), Article IV, Ohio Constitution.

Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed Hogan’s mandamus action. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affvmied.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.