[Cite as State v. Christian, 2024-Ohio-4493.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, :

No. 113580

v. :

CLIFFORD CHRISTIAN, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 12, 2024

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Case No. CR-00-398493-ZA

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 

Attorney, and Tasha L. Forchione, Assistant Prosecuting 

Attorney, for appellee. 

Clifford Christian, pro se. 

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J.:

Defendant-appellant Clifford Christian (“Christian”) appeals from 

the trial court’s denial of his public records request. For the reasons that follow, we 

affirm.
Factual and Procedural History

On November 9, 2000, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted 

Christian on one count of aggravated murder with a firearm specification. The case 

proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury found Christian guilty on May 3, 2001. The 

trial court sentenced Christian to 23 years to life in prison. 

Christian filed a direct appeal, and this court affirmed Christian’s 

conviction and sentence in 2002. State v. Christian, 2002-Ohio-1272 (8th Dist.). 

Christian is currently incarcerated at Belmont Correctional Institution.

On October 17, 2023, Christian filed a “motion for full disclosure of 

non-exempt records pursuant to R.C. 149.43-45 and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552(a)” (“the 

public records motion”). In the public records motion, Christian stated that he 

required full disclosure of all non-exempt records because he was preparing for his 

parole hearing and was therefore entitled to full disclosure pursuant to R.C. 

149.43(B)(8).

On October 26, 2023, the State filed a brief in opposition to 

Christian’s public records motion.

On November 27, 2023, the trial court denied Christian’s public 

records motion, stating that Christian had “not offered a justiciable claim 

contemplated by ORC 149.”

On January 23, 2024, Christian filed a motion for leave to file a 

delayed appeal. On March 6, 2024, this court granted Christian’s motion for leave 

to file a delayed appeal, stating:
A public records request is civil in nature. App.R. 4(A)(3) applies to 

civil appeals and states that if service is not perfected as outlined in 

Civ.R. 58, then the period for filing an appeal is tolled. State v. Tucker, 

8th Dist. No. 95556, 2011-Ohio-4092, P9. The trial court failed to 

direct the clerk of court to serve the appellant with notice of the 

judgment per Civ.R. 58. Therefore, the time to file the appeal was 

tolled, and appellant’s appeal is timely filed. 

Christian presents a single assignment of error for our review:

The trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for full 

disclosure of non-exempt records as appellant had presented a 

justiciable claim because appellant had identified a pending proceeding 

to which the requested documents would be material.

Law and Analysis

In Christian’s sole assignment of error, he argues that the trial court 

erred when it denied his application for non-exempt records because he needed the 

records to prepare for an April 2024 parole hearing.

We note that Christian appears pro se on appeal. This court has 

previously recognized

a pro se litigant may face certain difficulties when choosing to represent 

oneself. Although a pro se litigant may be afforded reasonable latitude, 

there are limits to a court’s leniency. Henderson v. Henderson, 2013-

Ohio-2820, ¶ 22 (11th Dist.). Pro se litigants are presumed to have 

knowledge of the law and legal procedures, and are held to the same 

standard as litigants who are represented by counsel. In re Application 

of Black Fork Wind Energy, L.L.C., 2013-Ohio-5478, ¶ 22.

Saeed v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 2017-Ohio-935, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.). 

Therefore, we presume Christian has knowledge of the law and appellate process.

R.C. 149.43 governs the availability of public records. In general, “the 

procedures set forth in R.C. 149.43(B) are intended to facilitate the quick disclosure 

of records held by a public office.” Hall v. State, 2009-Ohio-404, ¶ 9 (11th Dist.). 
Certain exceptions to the basic procedure are also delineated in the statute, and one 

such exception applies specifically to prison inmates like Christian.

Relevant to this case, R.C. 149.43(B)(8) provides:

A public office or person responsible for public records is not required 

to permit a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a criminal 

conviction or juvenile adjudication to inspect or to obtain a copy of any 

public record concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution or 

concerning what would be a criminal investigation or prosecution if the 

subject of the investigation or prosecution were an adult, unless the 

request to inspect or to obtain a copy of the record is for the purpose of 

acquiring information that is subject to release as a public record under 

this section and the judge who imposed the sentence or made the 

adjudication with respect to the person, or the judge’s successor in 

office, finds that the information sought in the public record is 

necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim of the 

person.

The statue provides that “an inmate will not have a right to copies of 

public records until he has followed the separate procedure for obtaining the trial 

judge’s approval.” Hall at ¶ 11, citing State ex rel. Cohen v. Mazeika, 2004-Ohio3340, ¶ 6 (11th Dist.). Specifically, the trial judge must make a finding that the 

information sought by the inmate “is necessary to support what appears to be a 

justiciable claim of the person.” R.C. 149.43(B)(8). 

“Absent a viable constitutional claim, we review a trial court’s ruling 

under R.C. 149.43(B)(8) for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Carr, 2019-Ohio-3802, 

¶ 21 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Stinson, 2019-Ohio-401, ¶ 8 (2d Dist.). A trial court 

does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion under R.C. 149.43(B)(8) made by 

a person who has not demonstrated that he has a justiciable claim or that the public 
records he seeks are necessary to support such a claim. Id., citing State v. Reid, 

2012-Ohio-1659, ¶ 13 (2d Dist.).

While R.C. 149.43 does not define a “justiciable claim,” this court has 

held that “a ‘justiciable claim’ is one that is capable of affording appropriate relief 

and ordinarily involves identifying a pending proceeding to which the requested 

documents would be material.” State v. Dowell, 2015-Ohio-3237, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.). 

Further, other Ohio courts have described a “justiciable claim” as one that is 

“‘properly brought before a court of justice for relief.’” State v. Long, 2018-Ohio4194, ¶ 10 (1st Dist.), quoting State v. Askew, 2017-Ohio-1512, ¶ 11 (11th Dist.); State 

v. Seal, 2014-Ohio-4168, ¶ 8 (4th Dist.); State v. Rodriguez, 2014-Ohio-2583, ¶ 14 

(12th Dist.); State v. Wilson, 2011-Ohio-4195, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.)

R.C. 2967.01(E) defines “parole” as 

regarding a prisoner who is serving a prison term for aggravated 

murder or murder. . . a release of the prisoner from confinement in any 

state correctional institution by the adult parole authority that is 

subject to the eligibility criteria specified in this chapter and that is 

under the terms and conditions, and for the period of time, prescribed 

by the authority in its published rules and official minutes or required 

by division (A) of section 2967.131 of the Revised Code.

Christian filed his public records motion in advance of a parole 

hearing in April 2024. “[T]he act of determining parole is not a judicial function, 

but is purely executive in nature.” Budd v. Kinkela, 2002-Ohio-4311, ¶ 8 (11th Dist.), 

citing Rose v. Haskins, 388 F.2d 91 (6th Cir. 1968). Therefore, a parole hearing is 

an executive proceeding, in which no party, including the inmate, is bringing a claim 

before a court of justice for relief. As such, a parole hearing is not a “justiciable 
claim” pursuant to R.C. 149.43. For this reason, the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Christian’s public records motion. Christian’s sole assignment 

of error is overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the 

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

_

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, JUDGE

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, A.J., and

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR