Case Title: State ex rel. Martin v. Greene

Citation: 2019-Ohio-1827

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2019-05-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Martin v. Greene, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-1827.] 
 
 
 
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. 2019-OHIO-1827 
THE STATE EX REL. MARTIN v. GREENE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Martin v. Greene, Slip Opinion No.  
2019-Ohio-1827.] 
Mandamus—Public-records law—Writ will not issue to compel act already 
performed—Writ denied—Statutory damages denied—Costs denied. 
(No. 2018-0068—Submitted March 5, 2019—Decided May 15, 2019.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} In this original action, relator, Andre Martin, seeks a writ of 
mandamus against respondent, Larry Greene, the administrative assistant for the 
warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, to compel the production of 
public records.  In addition, Martin seeks an award of statutory damages and court 
costs.  Also pending is Martin’s motion asking that this court accept the affidavit 
and exhibits attached to his complaint as substantive evidence. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} For the reasons set forth below, we deny the motion and the writ as 
moot.  We also deny his request for damages and costs. 
Background 
{¶ 3} Martin is an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility.  He 
alleges that on or about December 15, 2017, he submitted a public-records request 
to the warden’s office through the prison “kite system.”1  Although the public-
records request itself is not in the record, the parties seem to agree that Martin 
requested his inmate bank-account information for the months of November and 
December 2017. 
{¶ 4} Greene sent Martin a written acknowledgment that he received 
Martin’s request, indicating that he forwarded the request to the cashier’s office.  
However, neither Greene nor the cashier gave Martin any further response to his 
records request. 
{¶ 5} On January 16, 2018, Martin filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus 
against Greene.  Eight days later, the facility provided him copies of the requested 
records.  Greene subsequently filed a motion to dismiss but not on the basis of 
mootness.  Rather, Greene argued that we should dismiss Martin’s complaint 
because Martin failed to attach certain documents to the complaint.  We denied the 
motion, granted an alternative writ of mandamus, and set a schedule for the 
presentation of evidence and the filing of briefs.  155 Ohio St.3d 220, 2018-Ohio-
4201, 120 N.E.3d 783, ¶ 10.  Thereafter, Martin filed a memorandum but failed to 
submit any evidence or file a reply brief.  On March 15, however, three months 
late, Martin filed a motion asking this court to consider the affidavit and exhibits 
attached to his complaint as substantive evidence. 
 
 
                                                 
1.  A “kite” is written by an inmate to a member of the prison staff and is “a means for inmates to 
contact staff members inside [an] institution.”  State v. Elmore, 5th Dist. Richland No. 16CA52, 
2017-Ohio-1472, ¶ 15. 
January Term, 2019 
 
3
Analysis 
{¶ 6} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a party must establish by clear 
and convincing evidence (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear 
legal duty on the part of the respondent to provide it, and (3) the lack of 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.  “ ‘Mandamus will not lie to 
compel an act that has already been performed.’ ”  State ex rel. Martin v. Buchanan, 
152 Ohio St.3d 68, 2017-Ohio-9163, 92 N.E.3d 869, ¶ 5, quoting State ex rel. 
Eubank v. McDonald, 135 Ohio St.3d 186, 2013-Ohio-72, 985 N.E.2d 463, ¶ 1. 
{¶ 7} In general, a public-records mandamus case becomes moot when the 
public office provides the requested records.  State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. 
Seneca Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 120 Ohio St.3d 372, 2008-Ohio-6253, 899 N.E.2d 
961, ¶ 43.  The evidence submitted by Greene demonstrates that Martin has 
received the documents that he requested.  Martin did not file a reply brief disputing 
this fact.  We therefore deny the writ of mandamus as moot. 
{¶ 8} That ruling does not render Martin’s demand for statutory damages 
and court costs moot.  But we deny those requests on the merits. 
{¶ 9} A request for the production of public records is governed by the 
version of Ohio’s Public Records Act that was in effect at the time that the request 
was made.  State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2018-
Ohio-5108, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 11, fn. 1.  And under the version of R.C. 149.43(C)(2) 
that was in effect at the time that Martin made his public-records request, statutory 
damages were available only to a requester who proved by clear and convincing 
evidence that his written request for public records was delivered by hand or 
certified mail.  2016 Sub.H.B. No. 471.  Because Martin has produced no evidence 
that his written request was delivered to Greene by hand or certified mail, we deny 
the request for statutory damages. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 10} At all times relevant to this case, court costs under the Public 
Records Act may be awarded when (1) a court orders the public office or official 
to produce the requested records, R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(a)(i), or (2) a court determines 
that “[t]he public office or the person responsible for the public records acted in 
bad faith when the office or person voluntarily made the public records available to 
the relator for the first time after the relator commenced the mandamus action, but 
before the court issued any order,”  R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(b)(iii).  The first 
circumstance does not apply here.  And we conclude that the evidence does not 
support a finding of bad faith. 
{¶ 11} Martin made the request for his November and December bank 
records on or about December 15, 2017.  But the facility did not even receive 
Martin’s December bank records until January 16, 2018, the same day that Martin 
filed the complaint, and the facility produced those records to him eight days later.  
As for Martin’s November bank records, the facility received those on December 
13, 2017, two days before Martin submitted the records request.  Although the 
facility took approximately four weeks to produce those records, there is no 
evidence that the delay was the result of bad faith.  To the contrary, the facility 
voluntarily provided Martin the December bank records even though it believed 
that it had no legal obligation to do so (because it did not possess the records on the 
date of the request).  Because Martin has produced no evidence of bad faith, we 
deny his request for court costs. 
{¶ 12} Finally, we note that the exhibits and affidavit attached to Martin’s 
complaint do not change our analysis.  Martin filed his complaint eight days before 
the facility provided him with the responsive documents.  So nothing in the 
complaint could speak to the issue whether the facility’s document production 
mooted Martin’s mandamus request.  And we see nothing in those materials that 
would support his claim for statutory damages or court costs.  Martin’s motion to 
January Term, 2019 
 
5
have the attachments to his complaint accepted as evidence is therefore moot, and 
we deny the motion on that basis. 
Writ denied. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and 
STEWART, JJ., concur. 
KENNEDY, J., concurs in judgment only. 
_________________ 
Andre Martin, pro se. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Thomas Madden, Andrea K. Boyd, and 
Christina E. Mahy, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent. 
_________________