[Cite as State ex rel. Alford v. Toledo Corr. Inst., 2019-Ohio-294.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

LUCAS COUNTY 

State of Ohio, ex rel. Brian Keith Alford Court of Appeals No. L-18-1133 

 

 Relator 

 

v. 

 

Toledo Correctional Institution DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Respondent Decided: January 29, 2019 

* * * * * 

 Brian Keith Alford, pro se. 

 David A. Yost, Ohio Attorney General, for respondent. 

* * * * * 

JENSEN, J. 

{¶ 1} Relator Brian Keith Alford, an inmate at the Toledo Correctional Institution, 

requests that this court compel the respondent, the Toledo Correctional Institution, to 
2.

produce records pertaining to “medically approved boots” for the relator, pursuant to the 

Ohio Public Records Act. Relator is also seeking statutory damages for respondent’s 

alleged non-production of the requested records. 

{¶ 2} In his petition, relator alleges that he made public records requests, in 

writing, to “Inspector Burkhart” and the “Warden’s Administrative Assistant II.” Relator 

asserts these requests were made on March 29, 2018, and sought “all interoffice memos 

and e-mails relating to the ordering, purchase and costs for size 12-3E Boots for Brian 

Keith Alford A196-744.” Relator further alleges that a third public records request was 

made to “Warden’s Administrative Assistant II” on April 11, 2018. In support of his 

petition relator cites “Record # 1 attached.” 

{¶ 3} There are 25 pages attached to relator’s petition, none are labeled, some are 

wholly or partially illegible. One page appears to be a copy of an undated handwritten 

note stating: 

SIR, THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST PURSUANT TO R.C. 

149.43 ET SEQ. AND DRC POLICY 07-ORD-02 FOR A COPY OF ALL 

INTEROFFICE EMAILS/MEMOS FROM [ILLEGIBLE] STAFF TO 

[ILLEGIBLE] OR ANY OTHER COMPANY FOR ORDERS, 

PURCHASE AND COST FOR SIZE 123E BOOTS FOR FRIAN KEITH 

ALFORS A196744 BETWEEN NOVEMBER 2017 AND MARCH 2018 

OR ODRC IS LIABLE FOR STATUTORY DAMAGES. THIS REQUEST 
3.

IS HAND DELIVERED TO THE KITE BOX AT TROCZ ON 4-17-18 

REPECTFULLY, [ILLEGIBLE] 

A handwritten response on the note states, “You can kite Ms.Clartin to review your 

Medical Chart /s/ Zilles – HCA 4-20-18” 

{¶ 4} Another page attached to relator’s petition appears to be a copy of an 

undated handwritten note stating: 

THIS IS MY SECOND REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS 

PURSUANT TO R.C. 149-43 ET SEQ AND DRC POLICY 07-ORD-02 

FOR ALL INTEROFFICE MEMOS/EMAILS RELATING TO THE 

ORDER, PURCHASE, AND COST FOR SIZE 123E BOOTS BY 

MEDICAL FOR BRIAN K ALFORD A196-744 OR ORDC IS LIABLE 

FOR STATUTORY DAMAGES. RESPECTFULLY, [ILLEGIBLE] 

A handwritten response to this note states: 

Mr. Alford, there are no documents to provide regarding the 

information you requested. There is documentation in your medical record 

regarding your 12 3E boots. You are permitted to review your medical 

records, however copies are not permissible. You may set up a mutually 

convenient time with the HCA, or his designee, to review that record. /s/ 

Ms. Sehlmeyer. 
4.

{¶ 5} Our review of the other 23 pages attached to relator’s petition suggest that 

size 12 4E boots were ordered for relator, but he found them to be too big. In response, 

relator asserted that size 12 3E boots needed to be ordered from a specific vendor of his 

choice “for medical reasons.” Relator was informed to see his unit staff for assistance. 

{¶ 6} For a writ of mandamus to issue, the relator must have a clear legal right to 

the relief prayed for, the respondent must be under a clear legal duty to perform the 

requested act, and relator must have no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course 

of law. State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 451 N.E.2d 225 (1983). In 

response to relator’s request, the responder to one note indicated that no documents 

existed. In response to a second request, the responder indicated that the information he 

sought could be found in his medical file. The responder relayed relator specific 

instructions on how to review those documents. 

{¶ 7} Relator has failed to plead facts with sufficient specificity for this court to 

determine whether the issuance of a writ of mandamus is warranted. Accordingly, we 

decline to issue the writ and the petition is not well-taken and is denied. Relator is 

ordered to pay the costs of this action. The clerk is directed to serve upon the parties 

notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal pursuant to Civ.R. 5(B). 

Writ denied. 
5.

State of Ohio, ex rel. Brian Keith Alford 

v. Toledo Correctional Institution 

C.A. No. L-18-1133 

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. ____________________________ 

 JUDGE 

Arlene Singer, J. 

____________________________ 

James D. Jensen, J. JUDGE 

CONCUR. 

____________________________ 

JUDGE 

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of 

Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported 

version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: 

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.