Case Title: State ex rel. Chatfield v. Gammill

Citation: 2012-Ohio-1862

Docket Number: 2011-1843

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-05-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Chatfield v. Gammill, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1862.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-1862 
THE STATE EX REL. CHATFIELD, APPELLANT, v. GAMMILL, CHIEF, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Chatfield v. Gammill,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1862.] 
Court of appeals’ judgment denying request for writ of mandamus affirmed. 
(No. 2011-1843—Submitted April 24, 2012—Decided May 1, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 11AP-119, 
2011-Ohio-4596. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request 
of appellant, inmate James L. Chatfield, for a writ of mandamus to compel 
appellee, Stephen Gammill, chief of police of the city of Columbus, Ohio, to 
provide him with access to any records relating to the theft and impoundment of a 
white Ford Explorer allegedly being driven by Christopher Carter in November 
2007. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} Chatfield obtained the required judicial finding pursuant to R.C. 
149.43(B)(8) from the Perry County Court of Common Pleas that the requested 
information was necessary to support what appeared to be a justiciable claim.  In 
a subsequent entry, the common pleas court specified that the Columbus Division 
of Police shall provide “any and all” of the requested records.  See State ex rel. 
Chatfield v. Flautt, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2012-Ohio-1294, ___ N.E.2d ___. 
{¶ 3} Thereafter, the Columbus Division of Police responded to the 
request by indicating that it did not have any records regarding the specified 
incident.  The officer responding to Chatfield’s request opined that records 
regarding the incident did not exist because neither Chatfield nor Carter had been 
arrested by Columbus police.  The police have “ ‘no duty to create or provide 
access to nonexistent records.’ ”  State ex rel. Striker v. Smith, 129 Ohio St.3d 
118, 2011-Ohio-2878, 950 N.E.2d 952, ¶ 25, quoting State ex rel. Lanham v. 
Smith, 112 Ohio St.3d 527, 2007-Ohio-609, 861 N.E.2d 530, ¶ 15.  None of 
Chatfield’s assertions on appeal alters this dispositive fact, and because the police 
chief submitted an uncontroverted affidavit exhibiting that the police did not have 
the requested records and Chatfield failed to set forth specific facts showing the 
existence of a genuine triable issue, summary judgment in favor of the police 
chief was appropriate.  See State ex rel. Trafalgar Corp. v. Miami Cty. Bd. of 
Commrs., 104 Ohio St.3d 350, 2004-Ohio-6406, 819 N.E.2d 1040, ¶ 27. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
James L. Chatfield, pro se. 
 
Richard C. Pfeiffer Jr., Columbus City Attorney, and Glenn B. Redick, 
Chief Litigation Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________