Title: State ex rel. Scott v. Toledo Corr. Inst.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Scott v. Toledo Corr. Inst., Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-2694.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2024-OHIO-2694 
THE STATE EX REL. SCOTT v. TOLEDO CORRECTION[AL] [INSTITUTION]. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Scott v. Toledo Corr. Inst., Slip Opinion No.  
2024-Ohio-2694.] 
Mandamus—Public-records requests—A public office has no duty to produce 
nonexistent records—When no evidence exists to rebut public-records 
custodian’s claim that the requested records do not exist, the public office 
satisfies its obligations under R.C. 149.43—Writ and requests for statutory 
damages and court costs denied. 
(No. 2023-1170—Submitted May 7, 2024—Decided July 18, 2024.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
The per curiam opinion below was joined by KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, 
DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, and DETERS, JJ. 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator, Jumaane Scott, filed this original action requesting a writ of 
mandamus ordering respondent, the Toledo Correctional Institution (“TCI”),1 to 
produce public records.  Scott alleges that between April and July 2023, he made 
four separate requests for public records from TCI staff and that he never received 
the requested records.  His petition asks this court to compel the production of some 
of the requested records and award him statutory damages and court costs. 
{¶ 2} We deny the writ because the evidence before the court establishes 
that three of the requested records do not exist.  As to the fourth record, we deny 
Scott’s request because that request was not part of the relief he sought in his 
pleadings.  We also deny his requests for statutory damages and court costs. 
I.  FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
{¶ 3} Scott filed this action in September 2023.  His petition alleges that 
between April and July 2023, he made three separate requests for body-camera 
footage documenting the actions of three different TCI correction officers on 
specific dates (the “body-camera requests”) and that all three requests were denied. 
{¶ 4} Scott alleges that on April 27, 2023, he hand-delivered a public-
records request to Derek Burkhart, the warden’s assistant and public-information 
officer at TCI.  The request was for a copy of body-camera footage of Correction 
Officer Houck from December 13, 2022.  Scott claims that he handed the request 
to Burkhart, and Scott’s petition includes a copy of a four-page letter as evidence.  
The first three pages of the letter refer to an alleged incident involving Officer 
Houck and include Scott’s request for nonspecific records.  The fourth page of the 
letter then expressly requests Officer Houck’s body-camera footage from 
 
1. The caption of Scott’s complaint lists the respondent in this case as “Toledo, Ohio, Correction, 
Facility.”  The correct name of the facility is the “Toledo Correctional Institution.”  See Ohio 
Department 
of 
Rehabilitation 
& 
Correction, 
Facilities 
and 
Institutions, 
https://drc.ohio.gov/about/facilities/toledo-correctional/toledo-correctional (accessed May 28, 
2024). 
January Term, 2024 
 
 
3 
December 13, 2022.  Burkhart states in an affidavit that he received the first three 
pages of Scott’s letter and responded accordingly.  Specifically, he refers to a 
handwritten post-it note that he provided to Scott in which Burkhart explained, 
“This request does not specifically request any items of record.  My assumption is 
that you want body camera footage which you have already been informed there is 
no footage to give.”  Burkhart denies that he ever received the fourth page of Scott’s 
letter. 
{¶ 5} Scott also alleges that on July 9 and again on July 13, 2023,2 he sent 
electronic kites to Burkhart requesting copies of body-camera footage from two 
other TCI correction officers.  The July 9 request was for footage from Correction 
Officer Williams on April 20 and 22, 2023.  The July 13 request was for footage 
from Correction Officer Landin on May 16, 2023.  Burkhart denied the requests on 
July 14 writing, “You are not permitted to obtain copies of camera footage in your 
possession [sic].” 
{¶ 6} Scott further alleges that he made a fourth request on July 24, 2023, 
when he sent an electronic kite to Ms. Bucholtz, the TCI food-service director.  This 
request sought a copy of “the d.r.c. vegetarian diet menu” (the “menu request”).  
Bucholtz responded on July 28 that she had “sent it to administration to be posted 
on Viapath so everybody may see it.” 
{¶ 7} Scott’s petition asks this court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling 
TCI to release the body-camera footage that he requested.  He also seeks statutory 
damages and court costs.  His petition does not request any relief with respect to 
the menu request. 
 
2. Scott’s allegations and evidence are inconsistent about the exact date of his request for footage 
from Correction Officer Landin.  His complaint and affidavit state that the request was sent on May 
16, 2023, whereas a copy of the request sent to Burkhart in an electronic kite is dated July 13, 2023.  
Scott’s merit brief also refers to a July 13 request rather than a May 16 request. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4 
{¶ 8} TCI filed a motion to dismiss on October 10, 2023, to which Scott did 
not respond.  We denied TCI’s motion and issued an alternative writ.  2023-Ohio-
4259.  TCI filed evidence, and both parties filed merit briefs.  Scott did not file a 
reply brief.  TCI’s brief concedes most of Scott’s factual allegations but denies that 
Burkhart ever received Scott’s first request for body-camera footage of Officer 
Houck.  Moreover, TCI contends that “none of the body worn camera footage [that 
Scott] requests exists.” 
II.  ANALYSIS 
A.  Public Records Act 
{¶ 9} “[U]pon request by any person, a public office or person responsible 
for public records shall make copies of the requested public record available to the 
requester at cost and within a reasonable period of time.”  R.C. 149.43(B)(1). 
{¶ 10} Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel compliance with 
Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43.  See R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(b).  To be entitled 
to a writ of mandamus, Scott must establish by clear and convincing evidence that 
he has a clear legal right to the requested relief and that TCI has a clear legal duty 
to provide it.  State ex rel. Clark v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2024-Ohio-770, ¶ 6. 
B.  The body-camera requests 
{¶ 11} We deny Scott’s request for a writ compelling the production of the 
correction officers’ body-camera footage because the evidence establishes that the 
recordings do not exist.  Burkhart’s affidavit states that the footage requested by 
Scott “does not exist.”  According to Burkhart, such footage is retained only when 
it is “downloaded” at the end of a correction officer’s shift.  Burkhart asserts that 
that did not happen for the footage of any of the officers on any of the dates Scott 
identified in his body-camera requests. 
{¶ 12} TCI has no obligation to produce public records that do not exist.  
State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Seneca Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2008-Ohio-6253,  
¶ 27; see also State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 2020-Ohio-5100, ¶ 10 (“when a 
January Term, 2024 
 
 
5 
requester seeks a nonexistent record, a public office has no duty to provide it”).  
Absent contrary evidence from Scott, Burkhart’s affidavit establishes that the 
correction officers’ body-camera footage was not saved and does not exist.  See 
State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 2020-Ohio-2782, ¶ 8-9.  Because the footage 
at issue does not exist, this aspect of Scott’s claim is moot.  State ex rel. Pietrangelo 
v. Avon Lake, 2016-Ohio-5725, ¶ 2. 
C.  The menu request 
{¶ 13} We deny Scott’s request for a writ compelling the production of the 
menu because his pleadings included no request for such relief.  In his brief, Scott 
references the menu request along with the three body-camera requests, and he 
asserts that he “Made four simple Public records request[s]” and that TCI had a 
“legal duty To Provide him with the records or copies in A reasonable Amount of 
Time.”  (Capitalization in original.)  But Scott is not entitled to a writ of mandamus 
as to the menu request, because his petition did not ask for such relief.  The request 
for relief in his petition explicitly identifies the body-camera requests, but the menu 
request is conspicuously absent: 
 
Wherefore, Jumaane Scott, respectfully pray that a writ of 
mandamus be issued relater, never received the body Worn camera 
footage in violation of 149.43 of the revised code, and DRC policy 
07-ord-02 Public Records.  Ordering respondent Toledo Correction 
Institution to provide the body worn camera footage of officer Mr. 
Houck, Ms. Angela R. Williams, J.M. Landin of the mention dates 
writ of mandamus Per R.C.§ 149.43 Ohio’s public records act and 
award him statutory damages and court costs which he seeks. 
 
(Spelling, grammar, and punctuation in original.)  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
6 
{¶ 14} A relator cannot receive relief that he does not ask for.  This court 
and others have refused to provide relief that parties fail to seek in their pleadings.  
See, e.g., State ex rel. Gilreath v. Cuyahoga Job & Family Servs., 2024-Ohio-103, 
¶ 31 (denying mandamus relief that relator argued for in merit brief but had not 
sought in his writ petition); State ex rel. Union Metal Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 2005-
Ohio-847, ¶ 3 (10th Dist. 2005)  (“We cannot grant relief that is not requested.”).  
So too, this court’s rules of practice require parties seeking relief in an original 
action to identify the relief they seek from the court in their pleadings.  See 
S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.02(B)(3) (“All relief sought [in an original action] . . . shall be set 
forth in the complaint.”). 
D.  Statutory damages and costs 
{¶ 15} Scott seeks both statutory damages and court costs; we deny both 
requests. 
{¶ 16} R.C. 149.43(C)(2) provides that a public-records requester is entitled 
to statutory damages if, among other things, “the public office or the person 
responsible for public records failed to comply with an obligation in accordance 
with division (B) of this section.”  But Scott does not identify which obligation of 
R.C. 149.43(B) he contends TCI failed to comply with, which is a ground to reject 
his statutory-damages request.  See State ex rel. Duncan v. Am. Transm. Sys., Inc., 
2022-Ohio-323, ¶ 9 (“lack of meaningful analysis” in appellant’s brief sufficed to 
reject his argument). 
{¶ 17} Moreover, Scott has failed to show that TCI did not meet its 
obligations in responding to and denying his body-camera requests.3  Although 
Burkhart denied the July 9 and 13 requests based on his assertion that Scott was not 
permitted to obtain the body-camera footage, that response does not foreclose TCI’s 
 
3. As to the menu request, Scott is not entitled to statutory damages for the same reason that he is 
not entitled to mandamus relief set forth above, i.e., his petition does not identify the menu request 
as a basis for an award of statutory damages.   
January Term, 2024 
 
 
7 
argument before this court that the footage does not exist.  See R.C. 149.43(B)(3) 
(a public official’s explanation of a denial of a public-records request “shall not 
preclude the public office or the person responsible for the requested public record 
from relying upon additional reasons or legal authority in defending an action 
commenced under division (C) of this section”). 
{¶ 18} Additionally, Scott fails to show by clear and convincing evidence 
that Burkhart received his first request for body-camera footage and failed to 
respond to it.  Scott maintains that his April 27, 2023 request included four pages 
and that the last page contained an unambiguous request for footage from Officer 
Houck.  Burkhart agrees that he received the first three pages and contends that he 
responded in a post-it note; but he denies that he ever received the fourth page with 
the clear request.  Scott’s and Burkhart’s affidavits conflict regarding whether the 
request Scott contends he sent on April 27, 2023, was received by Burkhart.  Scott 
therefore fails to prove that he made that request or that TCI failed to meet its 
burden under R.C. 149.43(B).  See State ex rel. Ware v. Giavasis, 2020-Ohio-5453, 
¶ 32 (holding that relator failed to meet his burden when respondent’s evidence 
showed that respondent had not received all the public-records requests relator 
claimed he had sent); State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson, 2023-Ohio-3645, ¶ 13 (relator 
did not meet his burden to show that respondent failed to respond to his request 
prior to relator’s filing his mandamus claim).  Accordingly, Scott is not entitled to 
statutory damages for the body-camera requests. 
{¶ 19} We also deny Scott’s request for court costs.  Under R.C. 
149.43(C)(3), an award of court costs is contingent upon a court ordering the 
respondent to comply with some aspect of R.C. 149.43(B) or a showing of bad faith 
on the part of the respondent.  Because we have not issued a writ compelling TCI’s 
compliance with the Public Records Act and there is no evidence of bad faith, Scott 
is not entitled to court costs. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
8 
III.  CONCLUSION 
{¶ 20} We deny Scott’s request for a writ of mandamus as well as his 
requests for statutory damages and court costs. 
Writ denied. 
_________________ 
Jumaane Scott, pro se. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Matthew Convery and John H. Bates, 
Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent. 
_________________