Case Title: State ex rel. Russell v. Yost

Citation: 2023-Ohio-2356

Docket Number: 2023-0070

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2023-07-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Russell v. Yost, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2356.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2023-OHIO-2356 
THE STATE EX REL. RUSSELL, APPELLANT, v. YOST, ATTY. GEN., APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Russell v. Yost,  
Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2356.] 
Mandamus—Public-records requests—Inmate failed to show that he has a clear 
legal right to names of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 
employees who worked on his excessive-force case or that attorney general 
has a clear legal duty to provide that information—Court of appeals’ 
judgment granting attorney general’s motion to dismiss affirmed. 
(No. 2023-0070—Submitted April 18, 2023—Decided July 13, 2023.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 
No. 21AP-603, 2022-Ohio-4778. 
__________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Mark Russell, an inmate at the London Correctional 
Institution, filed an action in mandamus in the Tenth District Court of Appeals.  
Russell requested an order requiring appellee, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, 
to provide him with the names of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 
(“ODRC”) employees who worked on a case Russell had filed against ODRC.  The 
Tenth District granted the attorney general’s motion to dismiss.  We affirm. 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
{¶ 2} Russell’s petition avers that he was involved in an altercation with 
ODRC staff in 2016 and that he filed a pro se lawsuit in the Ohio Court of Claims 
against ODRC alleging excessive force during the altercation.  After the parties 
settled the case, Russell sent the attorney general’s office two letters requesting the 
name of the ODRC employee who had communicated with the attorney general’s 
office during settlement negotiations.  The attorney general’s office wrote back and 
stated that conversations between the office and ODRC are privileged. 
{¶ 3} Russell then filed the current action in the Tenth District.  He 
requested an order requiring the attorney general to provide the names of the ODRC 
employees who made decisions regarding his settlement.  His petition does not cite 
any statute or caselaw in support of his claim for this relief, nor does it allege that 
the attorney general violated R.C. 149.43, Ohio’s Public Records Act.  The petition 
states that “the relief Russell is requesting is his Constitutional Right to know who 
was in charge of making the decisions in his Court Settlement.” 
{¶ 4} The attorney general filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a 
claim upon which relief could be granted.  The Tenth District granted the motion, 
holding that Russell had failed to show a clear legal right to the relief he requested 
and that he had “not offered any legal support that favors granting a writ of 
mandamus in these circumstances.”  2022-Ohio-4778, ¶ 14. 
January Term, 2023 
3 
 
{¶ 5} Russell has appealed to this court. 
ANALYSIS 
{¶ 6} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Russell must establish by clear 
and convincing evidence that (1) he has a clear legal right to the requested relief, 
(2) the attorney general has a clear legal duty to provide it, and (3) he lacks an 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Love v. O’Donnell, 
150 Ohio St.3d 378, 2017-Ohio-5659, 81 N.E.3d 1250, ¶ 3.  We review the court 
of appeals’ judgment de novo.  State ex rel. Thomas v. Nestor, 164 Ohio St.3d 144, 
2021-Ohio-672, 172 N.E.3d 136, ¶ 4. 
{¶ 7} Russell has failed to show that he has a clear legal right to the relief 
he requested or that the attorney general has a clear legal duty to provide the relief.  
Russell does not cite any statute or caselaw requiring the attorney general to provide 
him with the names of the ODRC employees who negotiated the settlement of his 
excessive-force case.  Although Russell’s proposition of law asserts that he is 
entitled to this information under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the 
United States Constitution and under the Ohio Constitution, he does not explain 
how these constitutional provisions apply here. 
{¶ 8} Russell argues that if he had been represented by an attorney in his 
excessive-force case, his attorney would have known the names of the ODRC 
employees and thus that he—as a pro se plaintiff—should also be entitled to those 
names.  Even if his assumptions are true, it does not follow that the attorney general 
is required to provide him with the names. 
CONCLUSION 
{¶ 9} Russell has failed to show that he has a clear legal right to the names 
of the ODRC employees who worked on his excessive-force case or that the 
attorney general has a clear legal duty to provide that information.  Accordingly, 
we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, 
and DETERS, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Mark R. Russell, pro se. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Adam Beckler, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
________________________