Foust v. Nooth

In order to state a claim for habeas corpus relief, the petitioner must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate the two elements for habeas corpus and not just legal conclusions.

Foust is an inmate and appealed from a judgment of dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The trial court dismissed the petition because Foust failed to allege sufficient facts. A motion to deny a petition for habeas corpus relief is the equivalent of a motion to dismiss a civil complaint and is reviewed accordingly. The petition must allege specific facts sufficient to state a claim and cannot rest on allegations of legal conclusions. Foust sought to challenge his detention on Fourteenth Amendment Due Process grounds; such a claim must be supported by facts sufficient to demonstrate two elements: “(1) that the inmate’s confinement outside of general population is a further restraint on his liberty that imposes atypical and significant hardships in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life and (2) that the procedures afforded to him by the state to challenge his segregated detention are constitutionally inadequate.” Foust’s petition fails to support the second element because he alleged only legal conclusions, not particular facts. The trial court properly dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim. Affirmed.