Case Title: State ex rel. Gooden v. Kagel

Citation: 2014-Ohio-869

Docket Number: 2013-1159

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2014-03-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Gooden v. Kagel, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-869.] 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 2014-OHIO-869 
THE STATE EX REL. GOODEN, APPELLANT, v. KAGEL, CLERK, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Gooden v. Kagel,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-869.] 
Mandamus—R.C. 2969.25—Failure to attach required affidavits to petition is a 
fatal defect—Judgment denying writ affirmed. 
(No. 2013-1159—Submitted January 7, 2013—Decided March 13, 2014.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-13-0021. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of 
mandamus that sought public records.  Because appellant, Martine Gooden, failed 
to file the required supporting documents with his petition and because he failed 
to prove that the documents he sought were within the possession or control of 
appellee, Julie Kagel, Marion County Clerk of Courts, we affirm. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Facts 
{¶ 2} On April 24, 2006, Gooden was ordered to pay restitution to 
several victims as part of his sentence for a criminal conviction.  In his petition for 
a writ of mandamus, Gooden claimed that despite several requests, Kagel had 
failed to provide to him certified copies of the victim-loss statement for each 
victim. 
{¶ 3} Gooden also claimed that the sentencing court failed to provide 
any creditable documentation of the victims’ loss, which he asserted was 
“essential evidence that could sustain the judgment.”  He averred that he had 
repeatedly filed requests with Kagel seeking certified copies of the victim-loss 
statements from his criminal case but that Kagel had denied access to them. 
{¶ 4} The Third District Court of Appeals issued an alternative writ 
ordering Kagel to respond to the complaint.  Kagel responded that she was not 
and had never been in possession of the documents Gooden was seeking.  She 
also pointed out that Gooden appeared to be challenging the order for restitution, 
which could have been addressed in the  direct appeal of his conviction. 
{¶ 5} The court of appeals found that Gooden had not filed the 
documentation required by R.C. 2969.25 with his petition for a writ of mandamus.  
The court further found that Gooden had failed to attach any proof of his requests 
for the victim-loss statements or of Kagel’s denial of those requests.  The court 
also noted that Kagel had stated that victim-loss statements were not filed as part 
of any record related to Gooden in her custody and that Gooden had failed to 
point to a docket notation or other evidence that such statements had been filed.  
The court of appeals then held that Gooden had made only an unsubstantiated 
averment that the documents existed.  For these reasons, the court dismissed the 
petition for a writ of mandamus. 
 
 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
Legal Analysis 
{¶ 6} “Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel compliance with 
R.C. 149.43, Ohio’s Public Records Act.”  State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for 
Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288, 
2006-Ohio-903, 843 N.E.2d 174, ¶ 6; R.C. 149.43(C)(1). However, unlike in 
other mandamus cases, “ ‘[r]elators in public-records mandamus cases need not 
establish the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.’ ” State ex 
rel. Data Trace Information Servs., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 131 
Ohio St.3d 255, 2012-Ohio-753, 963 N.E.2d 1288, ¶ 25, quoting State ex rel. Am. 
Civ. Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 128 Ohio 
St.3d 256, 2011-Ohio-625, 943 N.E.2d 553, ¶ 24.  Therefore, insofar as Gooden 
wants to obtain public documents, he correctly filed an action in mandamus. 
{¶ 7} However, R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) requires that an inmate who seeks 
waiver of the filing fees in an action, as Gooden requested, file both a waiver and 
an affidavit of indigence containing a statement of his balance in his inmate 
account and a statement of his assets.  Gooden failed to meet the requirements of 
R.C. 2969.25 because he failed to attach a statement of his inmate account as 
required by R.C. 2969.25(C). 
{¶ 8} Moreover, Gooden has provided no evidence that any victim-loss 
statements were submitted to the clerk in his case.  Therefore, because he has 
failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the victim-loss statements 
he requested even existed, he cannot show that Kagel had a legal duty to produce 
them.  State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 133 Ohio 
St.3d 139, 2012-Ohio- 4246, 976 N.E.2d 877, ¶ 26. 
{¶ 9} The court of appeals properly held that Gooden was not entitled to 
a writ of mandamus because he failed to meet the requirements of R.C. 2969.25 
and because he failed to show that the victim-loss statements that he requested 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
existed.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing 
the petition for a writ of mandamus. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
 
Martine P. Gooden, pro se. 
_________________________