[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

ex rel. Ware v. Beggs, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-611.]

 

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-611

THE STATE EX REL. WARE v. BEGGS, MGR., ET AL.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State ex rel. Ware v. Beggs, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-611.]

Mandamus—Public-records requests—Relator failed to clearly and convincingly 

show that records custodian failed to send the records he had requested or 

that records custodian had failed to comply with an obligation under R.C. 

149.43(B) at time of filing of complaint—Writ denied as moot and statutory 

damages denied.

(No. 2023-0138—Submitted January 9, 2024—Decided February 22, 2024.)

IN MANDAMUS.

_________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} This is an original action in mandamus brought under Ohio’s Public 

Records Act, R.C. 149.43, by relator, Kimani E. Ware, against respondents, Lori 

Beggs and Trumbull Correctional Institution (“TCI”). Ware seeks (1) a writ of 

mandamus ordering respondents to produce public records and (2) an award of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

statutory damages. We deny the writ as moot and deny Ware’s request for statutory 

damages.

I. BACKGROUND

{¶ 2} During the time period relevant to this case, Ware was an inmate at 

TCI and Beggs was the manager of TCI’s cashier’s office. The cashier’s office 

oversees incoming and outgoing funds to inmates’ personal accounts.

A. Ware’s December 26, 2021 request for a six-month printout

{¶ 3} On December 26, 2021, Ware sent the cashier’s office an electronic 

kite requesting “a six month printout of [his] account.”1 The same day, Beggs 

printed the record and placed it in the mailbox associated with TCI’s institutionalmail system for delivery to Ware on December 27. Ware claims that he did not 

receive the record.

B. Ware’s February 10, 2022 request for cash slips

{¶ 4} On February 10, 2022, Ware sent the cashier’s office an electronic 

kite requesting “a copy of the following check out-slips (cash-slips): 1. Check out 

slip: dated 10/4/2021 made out to ohio dept. of rehab. & corr. 2. Check out slip: 

dated 12/27/20221 [sic] made to cuyahoga co. clerk of courts.” (Capitalization sic.) 

Beggs responded to Ware roughly one hour later, stating: “I have pulled and copied 

the cash slips. Please send a cash slip for .10. Each page is .05 per copy.” Ware 

1. The obligation to provide public records is placed on “a public office or person responsible for 

public records.” R.C. 149.43(B)(1). Respondents assert that “Ware never made his public records 

request to the proper person”—namely, “the warden’s assistant/public information officer.” Indeed,

throughout his history of filing public-records requests, Ware has shown that he knows how to 

identify the person responsible for public records. See, e.g., State ex rel. Ware v. Wine, 169 Ohio 

St.3d 791, 2022-Ohio-4472, 207 N.E.3d 807, ¶ 4 (lead opinion) (deputy warden informed Ware that

requests “should be made to a Mr. Booth”); State ex rel. Ware v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 

Supreme Court case No. 2023-0090 (involving public-records requests Ware sent to Glenn Booth, 

the public-information officer for Trumbull Correctional Institution).

Regardless, we need not resolve whether Beggs is the “person responsible” for the 

requested records because Ware has not “prove[d] facts showing that * * * [the] records custodian 

did not make the record available,” Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 163 Ohio 

St.3d 337, 2020-Ohio-5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 26.
January Term, 2024

3

responded to Beggs later that afternoon, stating that he was sending a $.10 cash slip 

and that the cashier’s office would receive it the next day.

{¶ 5} On February 15, Ware sent the cashier’s office a follow-up electronic 

kite noting that the $.10 cash slip had been paid but that he had not received the

cash slips he had requested. Beggs responded the next day, agreeing with Ware 

that the cashier’s office had withdrawn the $.10 from his account and telling him 

that the slips he had requested were placed in the mail on February 14.

{¶ 6} On February 18, Ware sent the cashier’s office another follow-up 

electronic kite, stating that he still had not received the cash slips and renewing his 

request that the cashier’s office send them to him. Beggs responded a little more 

than two hours later, informing Ware that the slips had been placed in the mail and 

that he should “check with Mr. Gibson in the mailroom.”

C. Ware’s mailroom inquiries

{¶ 7} On February 18, Ware received a pass to visit the mailroom and spoke 

to Gibson about the whereabouts of the request for cash slips he sent on February 

10. Because Gibson could not locate the slips, he inferred that Beggs had not sent 

the slips as she had claimed. According to Ware, Gibson told him that “if Ms. 

Beggs put [the slips] in the mail they would be here in the mailroom” and that 

because they were not there, “she did not put them in the mail as she claimed.”

{¶ 8} On March 9, Ware received another pass to visit the mailroom. 

According to Ware, Gibson again told him that because the cash slips were not in 

the mailroom, Beggs must not have mailed them. Gibson also told Ware that the 

six-month printout he requested on December 26 was not in the mailroom.

D. Ware’s complaint

{¶ 9} Ware filed his complaint in January 2023, seeking a writ of mandamus 

ordering the production of the records he had requested from December 26 through

February 10. Thereafter, this court denied Ware’s requests for a default judgment, 

granted Beggs’s motion to set the matter for briefing, and granted an alternative 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

writ ordering the submission of evidence and briefs. 170 Ohio St.3d 1487, 2023-

Ohio-2348, 212 N.E.3d 932. Ware and Beggs have filed evidence and briefs.

E. Ware’s new affidavit

{¶ 10} In September 2023, on the day after Ware was supposed to file his 

reply brief, he filed an affidavit attesting that he had received the cash slips from 

Beggs but that he still had not received the six-month printout.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Mandamus

{¶ 11} Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel compliance with the

Public Records Act. State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. 

Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288, 2006-Ohio-903, 843 N.E.2d 

174, ¶ 6; R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(b). To obtain the writ, Ware must show by clear and 

convincing evidence, State ex rel. Pietrangelo v. Avon Lake, 149 Ohio St.3d 273, 

2016-Ohio-5725, 74 N.E.3d 419, ¶ 14, that he has a clear legal right to the requested 

relief and that Beggs has a clear legal duty to provide it, State ex rel. Ellis v. Maple 

Hts. Police Dept., 158 Ohio St.3d 25, 2019-Ohio-4137, 139 N.E.3d 873, ¶ 5. Ware 

bears the burden to plead and prove facts showing that he requested a public record 

under R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and that the public office or records custodian failed to

make the record available. Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 

163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020-Ohio-5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 26.

{¶ 12} When Ware filed his merit brief, he argued that he had not yet 

received either the six-month printout or the cash slips he had requested. But as 

mentioned above, in Ware’s September 2023 affidavit, he attests that he has 

received copies of the cash slips but not a copy of the six-month printout.

{¶ 13} Ware’s September 2023 affidavit provides a basis for concluding

that his mandamus claim as to the cash slips is moot. But we do not factor this 

affidavit into our mandamus analysis, because Ware’s claims as to the cash slips 

and the six-month printout were moot before he filed the affidavit. The reason is 
January Term, 2024

5

that Ware has failed to clearly and convincingly show that Beggs failed to send him 

the records he had requested.

{¶ 14} We considered a question similar to the one presented here in Ellis, 

158 Ohio St.3d 25, 2019-Ohio-4137, 139 N.E.3d 873. There, an inmate provided 

an affidavit attesting that he had not received records from a police department in 

response to his public-records request. The police department’s records clerk, 

however, provided an affidavit attesting that the department had mailed all 

responsive documents to the inmate. This court affirmed the court of appeals’ 

denial of the inmate’s request for a writ of mandamus. We observed: “Although it 

is possible that [the inmate] has not received the documents, he has not contradicted 

the evidence showing that [the police department] satisfied any duty it may have 

had by mailing him the responsive documents.” Id. at ¶ 6. Continuing, we

concluded that “[b]ecause [the police department] satisfied its duty in relation to 

[the inmate’s] request, the mandamus claim is moot.” Id. at ¶ 7.

{¶ 15} Here, Beggs sent Ware what he had asked for by depositing the 

requested records in TCI’s institutional-mail system. Whatever may have 

happened to the records after that was beyond Beggs’s control.

{¶ 16} We recognize that Gibson told Ware that Beggs must not have

placed the records he had requested in the mail because they were not in the 

mailroom. But Gibson had no personal knowledge as to whether Beggs had mailed 

the slips; he simply inferred that she had not based on the slips’ absence.

Accordingly, Gibson’s statements to Ware are not evidence but merely inferences

that he made based on his failure to locate the records in the mailroom. There is no 

indication in the record that Gibson directly communicated with Beggs to confirm

these inferences. Because Ware has offered nothing more than these inferences, 

we cannot conclude that he has clearly and convincingly shown that Beggs failed 

to place the records in the mail. Ware’s mandamus claim must be denied as moot. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

See State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-3645, __ N.E.3d __, 

¶ 13; see also Ellis at ¶ 7.

B. Statutory damages

{¶ 17} A requester who transmits by electronic submission a fairly

described public-records request to a public office is entitled to an award of 

statutory damages if a court determines that the public office failed to comply with 

an obligation under R.C. 149.43(B). R.C. 149.43(C)(2). One of a public office’s 

obligations under R.C. 149.43(B) is to make the records available to the requester 

“within a reasonable period of time.” R.C. 149.43(B)(1). There is no dispute here 

that Ware fairly described the records he identified in his public-records requests. 

And this court has held that a request sent by electronic kite, as here, constitutes a 

method of electronic submission. See State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer, 165 Ohio 

St.3d 315, 2021-Ohio-1419, 179 N.E.3d 60, ¶ 21. The question then, is whether, 

as Ware argues, Beggs failed to produce the requested records within a reasonable 

time.

{¶ 18} We deny Ware’s request for statutory damages because he has not 

met his heightened burden of proof to show that at the time he filed this action, 

Beggs had failed to comply with an obligation under R.C. 149.43(B). See State ex 

rel. Ware v. DeWine, 163 Ohio St.3d 332, 2020-Ohio-5148, 170 N.E.3d 763, ¶ 25 

(denying statutory damages even though the relator never received requested 

records because evidence showed that governor had sent the records and “[w]hat 

happened to the documents after that was beyond the governor’s control”); 

Pietrangelo, 149 Ohio St.3d 273, 2016-Ohio-5725, 74 N.E.3d 419, at ¶ 27.

{¶ 19} It follows that because Beggs had complied with her obligations 

under the Public Records Act as of the filing of Ware’s complaint, statutory 

damages could not have begun to accrue. See State ex rel. Payne v. Rose, __ Ohio 

St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-3801, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 10 (because public office had complied

with its obligations under R.C. 149.43(B) by the time the relator filed mandamus 
January Term, 2024

7

action, the relator was not entitled to statutory damages); R.C. 149.43(C)(2) 

(statutory damages begin to accrue on day the relator files a mandamus action).

III. CONCLUSION

{¶ 20} We deny the writ of mandamus as moot and deny Ware’s request for

statutory damages.

Writ denied.

FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and DETERS, JJ., concur.

KENNEDY, C.J., and BRUNNER, J., concur in judgment only.

_________________

Kimani E. Ware, pro se.

Dave Yost, Attorney General, and George Horváth, Assistant Attorney 

General, for respondents.

_________________