Title: State ex rel. Mobley v. LaRose

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. Mobley v. LaRose, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-0909.] 
 
 
 
 
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-1909 
THE STATE EX REL. MOBLEY v. LAROSE, SECY. OF STATE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Mobley v. LaRose, Slip Opinion No.  
2024-Ohio-0909.] 
Mandamus—Public-records requests—R.C. 149.43—Failure to provide a certified 
copy within a reasonable time is not a failure to comply with an obligation 
under R.C. 149.43(B)—Awards of statutory damages and court costs 
denied—Writ denied as moot. 
(No. 2023-0834—Submitted March 26, 2024—Decided May 21, 2024.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator, Alphonso Mobley Jr., filed this action for a writ of mandamus 
to order respondent, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, to produce a certified 
copy of a document in response to a public-records request.  Mobley also seeks 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2 
statutory damages and court costs under R.C. 149.43(C).  We deny the writ as moot 
and decline to award statutory damages and court costs. 
I.  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
{¶ 2} In February 2023, the secretary’s office received by certified mail a 
public-records request from Mobley.  The request asked for a copy of the “Certified 
Bond of Director of Ohio Department of Rehabilitations and Corrections for year 
2021-2022.”  Sally Warren, the records coordinator who received the request, 
responded to the request the day after the secretary’s office received it.  Warren 
provided Mobley with an uncertified copy of the bond for public employees 
covering the period of July 1, 2021, to July 1, 2022.  In a letter accompanying the 
record, Warren informed Mobley, “If you wish to have the provided bond certified, 
you will need to submit $5.00 (check or money order payable to The Ohio Secretary 
of State) and send it with your request to the Client Service Center at the address 
listed at the bottom of this letter.” 
{¶ 3} On May 2, 2023, the secretary’s office received by certified mail 
another request from Mobley.  This time, Mobley asked for a paper copy of the 
“(Certified) Bond of Director of Ohio Department of Rehabilitations and 
Corrections.”  Enclosed with the request was a check for $5 issued by Southeastern 
Correctional Complex, where Mobley is incarcerated.  Warren sent the request to 
the service-center division of the secretary’s office for processing. 
{¶ 4} Mobley commenced this action on June 28, 2023, alleging that the 
secretary had yet to reply to his public-records request seeking a certified copy of 
the bond.  He requested a writ of mandamus compelling the secretary to provide a 
certified copy of the requested record and statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C).  
On July 7, 2023, the secretary’s office sent to Mobley a certified copy of the bond 
for numerous public employees, including the director of the Ohio Department of 
Rehabilitation and Correction. 
January Term, 2024 
 
 
3 
{¶ 5} The secretary filed an answer to the complaint, denying liability under 
the Ohio Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43 et seq., and averring that he had provided 
the requested record on July 7, 2023.  This court granted an alternative writ and set 
a schedule for the parties’ submission of evidence and merit briefs.  171 Ohio St.3d 
1443, 2023-Ohio-3432, 218 N.E.3d 947. 
II.  ANALYSIS 
{¶ 6} The Ohio Public Records Act requires a public office to make copies 
of public records available to any person upon request within a reasonable period 
of time.  R.C. 149.43(B)(1).  Mandamus is an appropriate remedy by which to 
compel compliance with the Public Records Act.  State ex rel. Bey v. Byrd, 167 
Ohio St.3d 358, 2022-Ohio-476, 192 N.E.3d 466, ¶ 9.  A requester seeking a writ 
of mandamus must establish by clear and convincing evidence a clear legal right to 
the records and a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the respondent public 
officer to provide them.  Id. 
A.  Mandamus Claim Is Moot 
{¶ 7} “In general, providing the requested records to the relator in a public-
records mandamus case renders the mandamus claim moot.”  State ex rel. Toledo 
Blade Co. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Port Auth., 121 Ohio St.3d 537, 2009-Ohio-1767, 
905 N.E.2d 1221, ¶ 14.  In this case, the record shows that on July 7, 2023—six 
business days after Mobley filed this action—the secretary provided Mobley with 
a certified copy of the record he had requested. 
{¶ 8} Despite having received a copy of the record responsive to his public-
records request, Mobley argues that his mandamus claim is not moot, because he 
believes the secretary did not produce a complete copy of the bond for the director 
of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.  The basis of his belief is 
that the record provided by the secretary does not include pages stating the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4 
conditions of the obligation or the conditions for the right of recovery.1  Mobley 
submits as evidence a copy of a document titled “Official Bond Endorsement” that 
appears to contain these elements for the bond applicable to Ohio government 
officials.  Mobley believes the “Official Bond Endorsement” pages are part of the 
“Public Employees Schedule Bond” document and should have been included with 
the certified copy of the document that the secretary provided to him. 
{¶ 9} Mobley’s argument is without merit.  To rebut the secretary’s 
attestation that his office produced a complete, certified copy of the bond Mobley 
requested, Mobley must submit clear and convincing evidence showing a genuine 
issue of fact that additional responsive records exist.  See State ex rel. Frank v. 
Clermont Cty. Prosecutor, 164 Ohio St.3d 552, 2021-Ohio-623, 174 N.E.3d 718,  
¶ 15, citing State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 133 Ohio 
St.3d 139, 2012-Ohio-4246, 976 N.E.2d 877, ¶ 26.  Mobley has not submitted such 
evidence.  The “Official Bond Endorsement” pages that Mobley argues are part of 
the bond he requested contain no indication of when the bond was effective.  
Moreover, the surety and policy numbers on the document submitted by Mobley 
are different from those on the certified record that the secretary provided.  Thus, it 
appears Mobley has attached pages of a different bond covering a different period.  
Accordingly, Mobley has failed to show a genuine issue of fact that additional 
responsive records exist. 
{¶ 10} The record before this court establishes that the secretary has 
provided the certified record that Mobley requested.  Mobley’s mandamus claim is 
therefore moot. 
 
 
 
1. Mobley also contends that the record provided by the secretary does not include the identity of 
the surety.  This contention is belied by the face of the document, which discloses the name of the 
surety. 
January Term, 2024 
 
 
5 
B.  Statutory Damages 
{¶ 11} Though Mobley’s mandamus claim is moot, his request for statutory 
damages remains a live controversy.  See State ex rel. Woods v. Lawrence Cty. 
Sheriff’s Office, 171 Ohio St.3d 238, 2023-Ohio-1241, 216 N.E.3d 663, ¶ 6-7.  R.C. 
149.43(C)(2) entitles a requester to damages if (1) he made a public-records request 
by one of the statutorily prescribed methods, (2) he made the request to the public 
office responsible for the requested records, (3) he fairly described the documents 
being requested, and (4) the public office failed to comply with its obligations under 
R.C. 149.43(B). 
{¶ 12} The secretary admits receiving Mobley’s second request by certified 
mail but argues that he had no duty to provide the requested record because R.C. 
149.43 requires a public office to provide a copy of a “public record” but does not 
require a public office to provide a certified copy of a record.  Thus, the secretary 
argues, Mobley cannot show that the secretary violated any obligation under R.C. 
149.43(B).  The secretary further argues that to the extent that he has an obligation 
to provide a certified copy of a record, that obligation does not arise under the 
Public Records Act. 
{¶ 13} We agree with the secretary.  R.C. 149.43(B)(1) states in part: 
“[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.”  In addition, R.C. 149.43(B)(6) 
provides that a public office may require the requester to pay “the cost involved in 
providing the copy of the public record.”  Thus, when a copy of a public record is 
requested under R.C. 149.43(B), a public office can require the requester to pay the 
copying and postage costs.  See State ex rel. McDougald v. Sehlmeyer, 162 Ohio 
St.3d 578, 2020-Ohio-4428, 166 N.E.3d 1127, ¶ 11; R.C. 149.43(B)(7)(a). 
{¶ 14} However, certified copies are treated differently.  “R.C. 149.43(B) 
does not require that public-records custodians provide certified copies of public 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
6 
records at cost.”  (Emphasis sic.)  State ex rel. Call v. Fragale, 104 Ohio St.3d 276, 
2004-Ohio-6589, 819 N.E.2d 294, ¶ 8.  Thus, in Call, the public office did not have 
to provide certified copies of requested records at cost in response to a public-
records request.  Rather, the custodian in Call could charge up to $1 per page for 
certified copies because a statute authorized such a charge for certified copies of 
the records the relator requested.  See id. at ¶ 8, citing R.C. 2303.20(Z). 
{¶ 15} The implication of this court’s decision in Call is that a public 
office’s obligation to respond to a request for a certified copy of a record does not 
arise under R.C. 149.43(B).  Indeed, the Public Records Act requires only that the 
public office provide the requester with “copies” of requested records at cost and 
within a reasonable time.  R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and (6).  The statute does not state that 
a public office must provide certified copies.  And if a public office is authorized 
to charge a fee for a certified copy, it follows that a certified copy is not covered by 
the public office’s obligation to provide a record at cost under R.C. 149.43(B).2  
Accordingly, even if the secretary did not provide Mobley with a certified copy 
within a reasonable time (an issue we need not reach), statutory damages are not 
warranted because the failure to provide a certified copy within a reasonable time 
is not a failure to comply with an obligation under R.C. 149.43(B). 
C.  Court Costs 
{¶ 16} Mobley also seeks an award of court costs under R.C. 
149.43(C)(3)(a)(i), which applies when the court orders a respondent to comply 
with R.C. 149.43(B).  Because we deny the writ as moot, Mobley is not entitled to 
costs under R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(a)(i).  Moreover, notwithstanding the denial of the 
writ, Mobley is not entitled to an award of court costs, because he filed an affidavit 
 
2. The secretary does not cite a statute authorizing him to charge $5 for preparation and production 
of a certified copy.  However, Mobley does not dispute that the secretary is authorized to charge $5 
for a certified copy of a record. 
January Term, 2024 
 
 
7 
of indigency and therefore had no obligation to pay costs.  State ex rel. McDougald 
v. Greene, 163 Ohio St.3d 471, 2020-Ohio-5100, 171 N.E.3d 257, ¶ 18. 
III.  CONCLUSION 
{¶ 17} For the foregoing reasons, we deny as moot the writ of mandamus 
and deny Mobley’s claims for statutory damages and court costs. 
Writ denied. 
KENNEDY, C.J., and DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, and 
DETERS, JJ., concur. 
FISCHER, J., concurs and would sua sponte declare relator to be a vexatious 
litigator. 
_________________ 
Alphonso Mobley Jr., pro se. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Heather L. Buchanan and Michael A. 
Walton, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent. 
_________________