IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : COMPLAINT PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

Transcription

1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO RHONDA HEAD 2675 E. 30th Street, Cleveland, OH 44115, v. Plaintiff, OHIO PAROLE BOARD. 770 W. Broad Street Columbus, OH 43222, Defendant. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Case No. Judge JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON COMPLAINT For her Complaint against the Ohio Parole Board, Rhonda Head alleges and states as follows: 1. This is a declaratory judgment action seeking, in part, a declaration by this Court that the Ohio Parole Board denied Plaintiff Rhonda Head meaningful consideration for parole, in violation of Ohio law. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 2. Rhonda Head (#W051344) is currently an inmate of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction ( DRC ), housed at its Northeast Reintegration Center ( NERC ), which is located at 2675 East 30 th Street, Cleveland, OH The Ohio Parole Board ( OPB ), located at 770 W. Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43222, is a statutorily-created, 12-member body charged with responsibility for conducting release consideration hearings on all parole-eligible inmates and for providing clemency recommendations to the Governor, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code

2 4. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Ohio Revised Code , (A), and (A). 5. This Court is the proper venue for this action under Ohio Civ. R. 3(B)(1)-(4), as the defendant is located in Franklin County. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Rhonda Head s Background and Sentencing 6. Rhonda Head was born in Painesville, Ohio, on April 21, Ms. Head moved out of her parents home in 1988, following a pattern of abuse by her father and other family members. 8. In April 1990, Ms. Head gave birth to a daughter, Dawn. Ms. Head had a second daughter in 1992 and a third daughter in Ms. Head worked several jobs before finding steady work providing in-home care to the elderly. 10. Her mother remarried to David Harvey, a sheriff s deputy in Lake County, Ohio. Ms. Head enjoys a close relationship with her mother, Laura Harvey, and her stepfather. 11. In 2001, Ms. Head s 11-year-old daughter Dawn was diagnosed with leukodystrophy, a degenerative brain disease. Ms. Head was informed that over time, Dawn would decline into a vegetative state and would die. 12. Also in 2001, the gentleman for whom Ms. Head was providing full-time in-home care moved into an assisted-living facility. As a result, Ms. Head lost her job as an in-home care giver. 13. In April 2001, Ms. Head met Shawn Hall, a drug dealer and a friend of Ms. Head s neighbor. Hall encouraged Ms. Head to experiment with crack cocaine, and she quickly became addicted. 2

3 14. Ms. Head reached an arrangement with Hall whereby she agreed to transport Hall in her van as needed, in exchange for his supplying her with crack cocaine. 15. On the evening of June 26, 2001, Hall requested that Ms. Head drive him and three accomplices to locate James Beres, a man whom Hall believed had taken drugs from Hall s accomplice without paying. Hall told Ms. Head that Hall intended to talk to Mr. Beres, and that Mr. Beres would have to pay Hall if Mr. Beres wanted to obtain drugs from Hall again. 16. Ms. Head was unaware of any further plans or intentions by Hall or his accomplices, including any plan to commit violence. 17. Hall and his accomplices brought Mr. Beres into Ms. Head s vehicle, and ordered Ms. Head to drive. An altercation broke out, and Hall ordered Ms. Head to pull the vehicle over. Ms. Head remained in the vehicle while Hall and his accomplices attacked Mr. Beres on the side of the road and left him there. Ms. Head did not physically participate in the attack on Mr. Beres. 18. Hall and his accomplices ordered Ms. Head to drive them away from where Mr. Beres lay on the side of the road following the assault. Ms. Head complied. 19. Subsequently, Ms. Head urged Hall to return to Mr. Beres to check on him, and Hall agreed. 20. Ms. Head and Hall returned and found that Mr. Beres had died. Hall ordered Ms. Head to drive Hall to retrieve his accomplices, which Ms. Head did. 21. Ms. Head suggested to one of Hall s accomplices that they contact the police. Hall s accomplice threatened Ms. Head s life if she were to contact the police. 22. Ms. Head returned home. Meanwhile, without Ms. Head s participation, Hall and his accomplices attempted to hide Mr. Beres s body. 3

4 23. On July 9, 2001, Ms. Head was arrested for her role in James Beres death. She has been in custody ever since. 24. Prior to her arrest in 2001, Ms. Head had no prior criminal record. 25. In connection with Mr. Beres death, Ms. Head was charged with murder, kidnapping, and felonious assault. Hall and his three accomplices faced related charges. 26. Two of the co-defendants accepted plea deals, and agreed to testify against the remaining co-defendants. 27. In November 2001, Ms. Head was tried and convicted of all counts. She was sentenced by Judge Eugene A. Lucci to consecutive terms of 15 years to life on a murder count, and five years on the kidnapping count. 28. Ms. Head s sentence was subsequently reversed on appeal. 29. On November 22, 2006, Judge Lucci re-sentenced Ms. Head to concurrent terms of 15 years to life on a murder count and 5 years on the kidnapping count. Additional counts for murder and felonious assault are merged into this sentence. 30. At the time of the re-sentencing, Judge Lucci made the following observations: a. That Ms. Head was less culpable than her co-defendants; b. That Ms. Head had shown progress in the period of five years that she had been in prison, specifically that she had undergone an attitude adjustment, found religion, engaged in community service, performed good works, and led a drugfree life; c. That re-sentencing Ms. Head to concurrent rather than consecutive terms, effectively reducing Ms. Head s sentence by five years, may make a difference 4

5 in Ms. Head s life and may prove out to be an opportunity that this Court would not regret giving her. B. Ms. Head s Productive Use of 15-Year Prison Term 31. Upon information and belief, DRC prepared a post-sentencing report regarding Ms. Head approximately 2 years after her re-sentencing. Ms. Head has requested a copy of the report; to date, DRC has not provided such a report. 32. Until 2012, Ms. Head was incarcerated at the Ohio Reformatory for Women in Marysville, Ohio. Subsequently she was transferred to NERC. 33. Ms. Head s daughter Dawn died while Ms. Head has been in custody. 34. Ms. Head has engaged in, assisted in teaching, and even founded a number of programs, including: a. Participating in substance abuse treatment and recovery maintenance; b. Participating and facilitating leadership training, mentoring, and writing skills, including editing a book manuscript for publication; c. Facilitating a parenting skills class; d. Co-founding, with a corrections officer and deputy warden, a military-inspired structured living program, involving a special housing unit with high standards of routine, cleanliness, and drill workouts; e. Participating in a victim awareness program; f. Participating in an anger management program; g. Performing tens of thousands of hours of community service, primarily involving care for pets of domestic violence victims while the victims are in shelters. 5

6 35. Ms. Head has also undergone significant job skills training, including as a service animal trainer and horticulturalist, and becoming certified by the Library of Congress as a Braille transcriber. 36. Ms. Head maintains strong relationships and regular communication with her family, including her mother, her stepfather, her two surviving daughters, her two sons-in-law, and her three grandchildren. C. Ms. Head s Application for Parole 37. In the spring of 2016, Ms. Head was advised by DRC personnel that she was eligible for a parole hearing. 38. Thereafter, Ms. Head completed a DRC questionnaire regarding her suitability for parole. In addition, DRC personnel met with Ms. Head s family regarding her suitability for parole. Ms. Head has requested copies of the questionnaire and any notes from the meeting with her family; to date, DRC has not provided such materials. 39. In May 2016, Ms. Head s family and her counsel met with a hearing officer for the OPB. Ms. Head s mother and stepfather the latter of whom is a retired sheriff s deputy advised the hearing officer that they would be willing to provide a stable, secure, and supportive environment for Ms. Head were she released, but would not hesitate to report any hint of recidivism. 40. On April 26, 2016, in support of her request for parole, Ms. Head s counsel submitted to the OPB a 12-page memorandum, backed with more than 170 pages of evidentiary materials. A true and correct copy of that memorandum, excluding its voluminous exhibits, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 41. Among the contents of Ms. Head s submission were the following: 6

7 a. Two confirmed, immediate job offers: one at a specialized environmental cleaning solutions company, and one as an administrative assistant at Lake County Speedway, working alongside her stepfather; b. A 2016 psychological evaluation by Dr. James Eisenberg, former Court Psychologist for the Lake County Forensic Psychiatric Clinic, opining that Ms. Head had demonstrated significant personal and psychological maturation, that she takes responsibility for her role that resulted in the subsequent death of James Beres, and that she presents a low risk for recidivism ; 1 c. An offer by Ms. Head s mother and stepfather of a stable, secure residence; d. Personal letters of support and reference from prison ministry participants; e. Letters of support from program instructors and volunteers; f. Positive evaluation reports and community service summaries. 42. Upon information and belief, letters supporting Ms. Head s request for parole were submitted to the OPB by both the warden and assistant warden of NERC. Ms. Head has requested copies of those letters from the OPB. To date, OPB has not produced them. D. The OPB Hearings 43. Ms. Head s parole hearing went forward on May 24, 2016, and was conducted through video conferencing. Ms. Head has requested a copy of the video tape and/or a transcript of the hearing. To date, the OPB has not provided the video tape or a transcript. 44. Ms. Head participated in the video conference hearing from a conference room at NERC. 1 Dr. Eisenberg had previously evaluated Ms. Head in His 2016 report described a significant improvement in Ms. Head s psychological health. 7

8 45. Upon information and belief, seven (7) of the twelve (12) members of the OPB (the Participating OPB Members ) participated in the video conference hearing from multiple locations across Ohio. 46. During the video conference hearing, Ms. Head was questioned by the Participating OPB Members about her role in the death of James Beres and her reintegration plan. The hearing lasted approximately 15 minutes. 47. Ms. Head was not questioned by the Participating OPB Members about any of the materials submitted in support of her request for parole. 48. Ms. Head was not provided with copies of any documents submitted to the Participating OPB Members that related to her request for parole. 49. Ms. Head was deprived of the opportunity to contest the accuracy of any evidence presented to the Participating OPB Members that did not support her request for parole. 50. The Participating OPB Members then caucused for approximately 10 minutes. Upon information and belief, the Participating OPB Members were not able to reach a decision regarding Ms. Head s request for parole. 51. When the video conference hearing reconvened, Ms. Head was informed that the matter would be submitted to the entire OPB for review and decision. The video conference then terminated. 52. Neither Ms. Head nor her counsel was notified of a hearing date before the entire OPB. 53. Ms. Head was not provided with copies of any documents submitted to the full OPB related to her request for parole. 8

9 54. Ms. Head was deprived of the opportunity to contest the accuracy of any evidence presented to the full OPB that did not support her request for parole. E. The OPB Decision and Ms. Head s Public Records Requests 55. On June 6, 2016, the OPB issued its decision denying Ms. Head parole and deferring any further consideration of parole for 5 additional years. A true and accurate copy of the OPB s decision is attached as Exhibit B. 56. In its decision, the OPB noted that Ms. Head had completed relevant programs to address her risk factors for re-offending, but nonetheless stated that these rehabilitative efforts were outweighed by the serious nature of the crimes and the case-specific factors of violence, brutality, and extensive conviction [sic]. 57. It is undisputed that Ms. Head did not physically participate in assaulting the victim. 58. Upon information and belief, OPB did not review or consider the materials submitted by Ms. Head on April 26, 2016, or the letters from the warden and deputy warden of NERC prior to reaching its decision denying Ms. Head s application for parole. 59. Ms. Head has requested copies of materials considered and relied upon by the full OPB in connection with her request for parole, by way of requests for public records directed to DRC. 60. Ms. Head s requests for public records were denied in large part, with withheld records including but not limited to any victim impact statements, correspondence among OPB members, internal memoranda, notes, and vote sheets. 61. Some documents responsive to Ms. Head s public records requests have been withheld on the basis that DRC does not deem them to be public records. 9

10 62. Some documents responsive to Ms. Head s public records requests have been withheld on the basis that DRC requires additional information that is not in Ms. Head s possession. For example, DRC advised that in order to obtain copies of communications among OPB members, Ms. Head must specify the identity of the particular sender and recipient of each communication. Ms. Head cannot obtain that information to any further degree of specificity than was already provided in her requests. 63. Upon information and belief, in denying Ms. Head s application for parole, OPB relied on documents, information, and alleged facts that are unavailable to and/or unknown to Ms. Head. 64. Upon information and belief, the undisclosed materials on which OPB relied contained untrue and/or misleading allegations concerning Ms. Head s role in the death of James Beres. 65. Upon information and belief, the undisclosed materials on which OPB relied contained incomplete and/or inaccurate descriptions of Ms. Head s disciplinary record and program participation during her incarceration. F. The OPB s First Flop and Co-Defendant Policies 66. The OPB has unwritten practices and/or policies of denying parole to certain parole-eligible inmates without meaningful consideration to the individual inmate. 67. The OPB has an unwritten practice and/or policy of denying parole to all firsttime, parole-eligible inmates who were found guilty of a violent crime (the First Flop Policy ). This policy is applied even if the particular inmate did not play a violent role in the crime, as is the case with Ms. Head. 68. Upon information and belief, the First Flop Policy was a material factor in the OPB s decision denying Ms. Head s application for parole. 10

11 69. When multiple offenders are found guilty of crimes in connection with a single event or course of events, the OPB also has an unwritten practice and/or policy of denying parole to the first co-defendant considered for parole (the Co-Defendant Policy ). 70. Upon information and belief, the Co-Defendant Policy is applied in order to preserve the OPB s ability to obtain statements from co-defendant(s) against other codefendant(s). 71. Upon information and belief, the Co-Defendant Policy was a material factor in the OPB s decision denying Ms. Head s application for parole. COUNT ONE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR DENIAL OF MEANINGFUL CONSIDERATION FOR PAROLE 72. Ms. Head adopts and incorporates the allegations set forth in the foregoing Paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 73. Under well-settled principles of Ohio law, inmates who are eligible for parole must receive meaningful consideration for parole. 74. In considering an inmate for parole, the OPB is required to consider various reports, documents, and other relevant written information pertaining to the inmate. 75. Ohio law recognizes a due-process expectation that information considered at an inmate s parole hearing will actually and accurately pertain to the inmate whose parole is being considered. 76. The OPB is obligated to investigate and correct any errors that are brought to its attention regarding the accuracy of the reports, documents, and other written information considered by the OPB at a parole hearing. 11

12 77. In order to effectively exercise recognized due process rights and the right to meaningful consideration for parole, an inmate is entitled to review the reports, documents, and other written information considered by the OPB at a parole hearing. 78. The OPB did not provide Ms. Head with copies of all reports, documents, or other written information it considered at the parole hearing before or after denying parole to Ms. Head. 79. Ms. Head was therefore deprived of the opportunity to ensure that the reports, documents, and other written information considered by the OPB were accurate. 80. Upon information and belief, the OPB considered inaccurate and/or misleading reports, documents, and/or other written information in denying parole to Ms. Head. 81. Ms. Head was therefore deprived of the opportunity to inform the OPB of the substantive inaccuracies in the reports, documents, and/or other written information considered by OPB. 82. These deprivations denied Ms. Head the right to meaningful consideration for parole in violation of Ohio law. 83. Further, upon information and belief, the OPB also unreasonably failed to consider reports, documents, and/or other written information comprising Ms. Head s April 26, 2016 submission to OPB as well as the supportive letters from the warden and deputy warden of NERC. 84. OPB s failure to consider Ms. Head s April 26, 2016 submission to OPB as well as the supportive letters from the warden and deputy warden of NERC denied Ms. Head the right to meaningful consideration for parole in violation of Ohio law. 12

13 85. In addition, upon information and belief, the First Flop Policy was a material factor in the OPB s decision denying Ms. Head parole. 86. OPB s application of the First Flop Policy denied Ms. Head the right to meaningful consideration for parole in violation of Ohio law. 87. Also, upon information and belief, the Co-Defendant Policy was a material factor in the OPB s decision denying Ms. Head parole. 88. OPB s application of the Co-Defendant Policy denied Ms. Head the right to meaningful consideration for parole in violation of Ohio law. 89. OPB denies that Ms. Head has a right to meaningful consideration for parole and/or that such right includes the right to inform the OPB of substantive inaccuracies in reports, documents, and/or other written information considered by OPB. 90. There is a real and justiciable controversy between Ms. Head and OPB concerning OPB s denial of Ms. Head s right to meaningful consideration for parole in violation of Ohio law. 91. The rights, status, and other legal obligations of Ms. Head and OPB are uncertain and insecure, and the entry of a declaratory judgment by this Court will terminate the uncertainty and controversy which has given rise to this proceeding. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Rhonda Head demands judgment in her favor and against the Ohio Parole Board as follows: 1. A declaration by this Court that the Ohio Parole Board has denied Rhonda Head meaningful consideration for parole, in violation of Ohio law; 2. Attorney fees, expenses, and court costs as provided by law; and 13

14 3. Such other and further legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and proper. Dated: March 30, 2018 Respectfully submitted, /s/ David J. Carey David J. Carey ( ) Todd M. Seaman ( ) Thompson Hine LLP 41 South High St., Ste Columbus, Ohio Tel: (614) Fax: (614) Frank R. DeSantis ( ) Thompson Hine LLP 3900 Key Center 127 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio Tel: (216) Fax: (216) David A. Singleton ( ) Tiffanny Smith ( ) William J. Pohlman ( ) Ohio Justice & Policy Center 215 East 9th Street, Suite 601 Cincinnati, Ohio Tel: (513) Fax: (513) Attorneys for Plaintiff Rhonda Head 14

15 JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. /s/ David J. Carey David J. Carey ( ) 15

16 Exhibit A

17 Tab Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas Mar 30 10:17 AM-18CV RHONDA HEAD (#W051344) DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PAROLE Page Number Author Subject David J. Carey Memorandum of Counsel [Staff] Institutional Report Summary & Discipline Record Rhonda Head Letter to the Parole Board Dr. James R. Eisenberg Forensic Psychological Evaluation (2016) Dr. James R. Eisenberg Forensic Psychological Evaluation (2006) Leslie A. Gray Substance abuse recovery program completion Mike Shomo Job offer with HAIS Environmental Sandra Swanson Recommendation based on Berea animal care program Melissa Holbrooks Job offer, and letter of support [Staff] Inmate Evaluation Reports (Animal Trainer) [Staff] Inmate Community Service summary Dr. Diana Gurley and Rev. Sala Nolan Gonzales Letter of support based on New Community s I Want My Life Back Program Laura and David Harvey Letter of support from parents Ashley ODell Letter of support from daughter Carol Manning Personal letter of support Carol Fitch Personal letter of support Cathy George Personal letter of support S. Stuart Eilers, Esq. Letter of support from former attorney Jennifer Mountcastle, Esq. Letter of support from former attorney Patricia Lombardo Letter of support for Laura and David Harvey Holly Gielink Letter of support for Laura and David Harvey Mike and Kristine Suydam Letter of support for Laura and David Harvey Prof. Julius Simmons Letter of support based on Media Literacy and Parenting programs [Staff] Full Collection of Certificates and Program Achievements

18 TAB 1

19 000003

20 000004

21 000005

22 000006

23 000007

24 000008

25 000009

26 000010

27 000011

28 000012

29 000013

30 000014

31 Exhibit B

32

33