Title: State ex rel. McGowan v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

The State ex rel. McGowan v. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority. 
[Cite as State ex rel. McGowan v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth. (1997),   Ohio 
St.3d     .] 
Mandamus compelling Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority to 
provide relator access to personnel records of its police officers -- 
Writ granted, when -- Attorney fees and damages for pro se relator 
denied -- Request for costs granted. 
 
(No. 96-1941 -- Submitted April 15, 1997 -- Decided June 4, 1997.) 
 
IN MANDAMUS. 
 
Respondent, Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority (“CMHA”), has 
employed relator, Harvey J. McGowan, as a lieutenant in its police division since 
June 1985.  In June and August 1996, McGowan requested access to records 
concerning certain CMHA Police Division employees and relating to the interview 
process for the position of CMHA Police Commander.  CMHA did not respond to 
McGowan’s requests.   
 
In August 1996, McGowan filed this action for a writ of mandamus to 
compel CMHA to provide access to the requested records.  McGowan had 
previously filed a mandamus action in the court of appeals to compel CMHA to 
provide access to other requested records.  In October 1996, the court of appeals 
 
2
dismissed McGowan’s mandamus action as moot after CMHA provided the 
records requested in that case.  McGowan also filed a complaint in common pleas 
court for injunctive relief against CMHA’s alleged discriminatory practices.  
McGowan also sued CMHA in municipal court seeking damages and 
expungement of disciplinary violations.   
 
After CMHA filed a motion to dismiss this mandamus action, we granted an 
alternative writ and issued a schedule for the presentation of evidence and briefs.   
The cause is now before this court on the submitted evidence and arguments. 
____________________ 
 
Harvey J. McGowan, pro se. 
 
Stephanie R. Reed, for respondent. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
Mandamus; Adequate Legal Remedy 
 
In his propositions of law, McGowan asserts that he is entitled to  a writ of 
mandamus to compel CMHA to provide him with access to the requested records 
pursuant to R.C. 149.43. Exceptions to disclosure must be strictly construed 
against the public records custodian, and the burden to establish an exception is on 
 
3
the custodian.  State ex rel. James v. Ohio State Univ. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 168, 
169, 637 N.E.2d 911, 912. 
 
CMHA does not claim that any of the requested records are exempt from 
disclosure.  In fact, most of the requested records appear to be personnel records of 
police officers employed by CMHA.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Multimedia, Inc. v. 
Snowden (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 141, 142, 647 N.E.2d 1374, 1377 (“Personnel 
records of police officers reflecting the discipline of police officers are not 
confidential law enforcement investigatory records excepted from disclosure under 
R.C. 149.43[A][2] ***.”). 
 
Instead, CMHA contends that McGowan is not entitled to mandamus relief 
because he has or had an adequate remedy at law to obtain the requested records 
through either the discovery process in the injunction case or in the now-dismissed 
mandamus action in the court of appeals.  CMHA relies on State ex rel. Shane v. 
New Philadelphia Police Dept. (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 36, 37, 564 N.E.2d 89, 90 
(“Trial courts can decide R.C. 149.43 issues in the discovery process.”), and State 
ex rel. Hastings Mut. Ins. Co. v. Merillat (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 152, 553 N.E.2d 
646, paragraph two of the syllabus. 
 
4
 
CMHA’s contention lacks merit.  We expressly overruled Shane and 
Hastings in State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 426-427, 
639 N.E.2d 83, 88-89, holding that “mandamus is the appropriate remedy to force 
compliance with the open-records statute.”  See, also, State ex rel. Findlay 
Publishing Co. v. Schroeder (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 580, 582, 669 N.E.2d 835, 838 
(“[P]ersons seeking public records pursuant to R.C. 149.43[C] need not establish 
the lack of an adequate remedy at law in order to be entitled to a writ of 
mandamus.”); State ex rel. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. 
Court of Common Pleas (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 19, 23, 652 N.E.2d 179, 183.  
Second, CMHA has failed to establish that any of the requested records are 
relevant to McGowan’s common pleas court case or that these records are 
privileged.  Cf. State ex rel. WHIO-TV-7 v. Lowe (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 350, 673 
N.E.2d 1360, syllabus.  Finally, CMHA has not established that McGowan’s 
mandamus action in the court of appeals involved the same records as this case. 
 
Based on the foregoing, McGowan is entitled to the requested writ of 
mandamus.   
Costs; Fees; Punitive Damages 
 
5
 
McGowan requests costs, attorney fees, and damages in connection with 
this case.  McGowan is entitled to a refund of the $100 security deposit and $40 
docket fee as costs.  State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Cleveland (1996), 
76 Ohio St.3d 1218, 1219, 667 N.E.2d 1232, 1233; S.Ct.Prac.R. XV(1) and (2).  
But McGowan, a pro se litigant, is not entitled to attorney fees and damages.  See, 
e.g., State ex rel. Yant v. Conrad (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 681, 684, 660 N.E.2d 
1211, 1214. 
 
Accordingly, we grant a writ of mandamus to compel CMHA to provide 
McGowan access to the requested records, award costs to McGowan, and deny 
McGowan’s request for attorney fees and damages. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Writ granted. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.