Saini v. Cook , 2016 Ohio 8067 ( 2016 )

[Cite as Saini v. Cook, 2016-Ohio-8067.]
COURT OF APPEALS
FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PARDEEP SINGH SAINI : JUDGES:
SOUTHEASTERN CORR. INST. :
: Hon., William B. Hoffman P.J.
Petitioner : Hon., Sheila G. Farmer J.
: Hon., Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs- :
:
BRIAN COOK, WARDEN : Case No. 15-CA-58
SOUTHEASTERN CORR. INST. :
:
Respondent : 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 Michael DeWine
Southeastern Correctional Inst. Ohio Attorney General
5900 BIS Rd. Maura O’Neill Jaite (0058524)
Lancaster, Ohio 43130 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 3
By Hoffman, P. J.
Farmer, J. and
Delaney, J. concur.
[Cite as Saini v. Cook, 2016-Ohio-8067.]