Case Title: State ex rel. Porter v. Cleveland Dept. of Pub. Safety

Citation: 1998-Ohio-539

Docket Number: 19981140

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-12-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE STATE EX REL. PORTER, APPELLANT, v. CLEVELAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC 
SAFETY ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Porter v. Cleveland Dept. of Pub. Safety (1998), ___ Ohio 
St.3d ___.] 
Public records — Mandamus to compel Cleveland Department of Public Safety 
and its police chief to forward copies of certain records to relator — 
Complaint dismissed, when. 
(No. 98-1140 — Submitted October 27, 1998 — Decided December 30, 1998.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 74269. 
 
In 1998, appellant, Paul Porter, filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in 
the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.  Porter, an inmate at the Marion 
Correctional Institution, sought to compel appellees, Cleveland Department of 
Public Safety and its police chief, to forward copies of certain records to him 
pursuant to Ohio’s Public Records Law, R.C. 149.43.  Appellee Department of 
Public Safety had previously advised Porter that it had no obligation to mail the 
requested records to him, but that Porter could designate an individual to contact 
appellee about his request.  Porter, however, had no one to act as his designee.  
Porter did not raise any alleged violation by appellees of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act or his constitutional right of access. 
 
The court of appeals dismissed Porter’s complaint, and the cause is before 
this court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Paul Porter, pro se. 
 
Sylvester Summers, Jr., Cleveland Director of Law, Joseph J. Jerse, Chief 
Assistant Director of Law, and Anthony N. Palombo, Assistant Director of Law, 
for respondents. 
 
2
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Porter asserts in his propositions of law that the court of 
appeals erred in dismissing his complaint for a writ of mandamus.  For the reasons 
that follow, Porter’s claims lack merit. 
 
First, as the court of appeals correctly held, appellees did not have a clear 
legal duty under R.C. 149.43 to transmit copies of the requested records to Porter 
in prison by mail or other means.  State ex rel. Iacovone v. Kaminski (1998), 81 
Ohio St.3d 189, 190, 690 N.E.2d 4, 5; State ex rel. Mayes v. Holman (1996), 76 
Ohio St.3d 147, 149, 666 N.E.2d 1132, 1134. 
 
Second, Porter waived his appellate claims concerning appellees’ alleged 
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and his constitutional right of 
access because he failed to raise these claims in the court of appeals.  “ 
‘Ordinarily, reviewing courts do not consider questions not presented to the court 
whose judgment is sought to be reversed.’ ”  See State ex rel. Quarto Mining Co. 
v. Foreman (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 78, 81, 679 N.E.2d 706, 709, quoting Goldberg 
v. Indus. Comm. (1936), 131 Ohio St. 399, 404, 6 O.O. 108, 110, 3 N.E.2d 364, 
367. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.