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

ex rel. Clark v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-770.]

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-770

THE STATE EX REL. CLARK v. DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND 

CORRECTION.

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

it may be cited as State ex rel. Clark v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.,

Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-770.]

Mandamus—Public-records requests—R.C. 149.43—Requested records 

provided—Relator showed that respondent failed for 11 business days, 

starting with day relator filed mandamus action, to comply with its 

obligations under R.C. 149.43(B) to produce requested records—Writ 

denied as moot, $1,000 in statutory damages awarded, and request for court 

costs denied.

(No. 2023-0387—Submitted January 9, 2024—Decided March 6, 2024.)

IN MANDAMUS.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Relator, Thomas Clark, brought this original action under Ohio’s 

Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, seeking a writ of mandamus ordering respondent,

the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”), to produce 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

public records in response to a public-records request. He also seeks awards of 

statutory damages and court costs. We deny the writ as moot, award Clark $1,000 

in statutory damages, and decline to award court costs.

I. BACKGROUND

{¶ 2} Clark is currently incarcerated at the Lebanon Correctional 

Institution. On September 8, 2022, Clark sent an electronic kite through the 

prison’s “JPay” system to Ron Watts, a commissary and cashier supervisor at the 

Lebanon Correctional Institution. Clark wrote that he was making a “formal public 

records request” and requested that Watts “[p]lease forward [to Clark] an up-todate paper copy of the commissary price list for each commissary window 

(Window one; Window two; and Window three).” Clark offered to pay for the 

copies. On September 12, Watts responded, writing that “[t]hese were put on J Pay 

so you can get pricing there.” Later that day, Clark replied, writing that he had 

requested paper copies of the price lists and again asked that Watts send him the 

copies. Watts wrote back that “[t]he list is being sent back out through J Pay.”

{¶ 3} On September 13, Clark submitted a grievance regarding Watts not 

providing paper copies of the price lists and Clark again requested the copies. On 

September 16, Inspector Devin Hoover responded to Clark’s grievance, writing that 

he had investigated the grievance and “found no policies being violated.” Hoover, 

however, granted the grievance and wrote that he would “provide [Clark] with the 

most up to date price listing.”

{¶ 4} Despite Hoover’s statement that he would provide Clark with the 

“price listing,” Clark states that he was not provided paper copies of the price lists, 

and on September 26, Clark appealed Hoover’s decision regarding the grievance to 

the office of the chief inspector. In his appeal, Clark wrote that although he had 

received an electronic copy of the price lists, he had still not received paper copies. 

He also wrote that he wanted paper copies because he intended to give them to a 

third-party and that he could not print the electronic copy of the price lists from the
January Term, 2024

3

JPay system, because JPay messages did not format correctly when printed. Marc 

Bratton from the office of the chief inspector responded to Clark, notifying him that 

because Hoover had granted Clark’s grievance, the concerns Clark raised in his 

appeal did not qualify for an appeal. Bratton wrote that Clark “may resubmit [his]

request in an electronic kite to the warden’s assistant.” As of the date Clark filed 

his mandamus petition in this court, he had not received paper copies of the price 

lists.

{¶ 5} On March 20, 2023, Clark filed this mandamus action. He seeks a 

writ of mandamus ordering ODRC to provide him with copies of the requested 

records and awards of statutory damages and court costs. We granted an alternative 

writ ordering ODRC to file an answer to the petition and scheduling the submission 

of evidence and briefs. 170 Ohio St.3d 1488, 2023-Ohio-2348, 212 N.E.3d 933. 

ODRC filed an answer and submitted as evidence an affidavit from a warden’s 

assistant. The warden’s assistant avers that on April 4, she provided paper copies 

of the price lists to Clark, and she attached copies of the price lists to her affidavit. 

Clark agrees that he received paper copies of the price lists on April 4, but he argues 

that the price lists are now out of date because they show prices from August 2022.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. Writ of mandamus

{¶ 6} “[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.” R.C. 149.43(B)(1). 

Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel compliance with the Public Records 

Act. See R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(b). To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Clark must 

prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he has a clear legal right to the relief 

sought and that ODRC has a clear legal duty to provide that relief. State ex rel. 

Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 142 Ohio St.3d 392, 2015-Ohio-974, 31 N.E.3d 616, 

¶ 10.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

{¶ 7} Because ODRC has now provided Clark with the requested records, 

we deny Clark’s claim for a writ of mandamus as moot. See State ex rel. Martin v. 

Greene, 156 Ohio St.3d 482, 2019-Ohio-1827, 129 N.E.3d 419, ¶ 7 (“In general, a 

public-records mandamus case becomes moot when the public office provides the 

requested records”).

{¶ 8} Clark argues that his mandamus claim is not moot, because he 

requested “up-to-date” paper copies of the price lists, and when ODRC provided 

him with the price lists in April 2023, the copies—which are dated August 27, 

2022—were already out of date. But the scope of Clark’s public-records request 

must be understood at the time he sent it. Clark made his request for records in 

September 2022, and the copies ODRC provided are current as of that date. If 

newer price lists exist and Clark wants them, he may make a new request for them. 

See Ryan v. Ashtabula, Ct. of Cl. Nos. 2022-00660PQ, 2022-00665PQ, 2022-

00680PQ, 2023-Ohio-621, ¶ 11 (“A requester’s right to judicial relief is fixed by 

the scope of the request pending when the case is filed”).

{¶ 9} However, Clark’s demands for statutory damages and court costs are 

not moot. See Martin at ¶ 7-8.

B. Statutory damages

{¶ 10} Clark seeks an award of statutory damages. We award him $1,000 

in statutory damages.

{¶ 11} Statutory damages shall be awarded if a public-records requester 

transmits a written request by hand delivery, electronic submission, or certified mail 

and the public office or person responsible for the records fails to comply with any 

obligation under R.C. 149.43(B). R.C. 149.43(C)(2). Clark submitted his publicrecords request through the prison’s electronic-kite system, which constitutes 

electronic submission for purposes of R.C. 149.43(C)(2). See State ex rel. Griffin 

v. Sehlmeyer, 165 Ohio St.3d 315, 2021-Ohio-1419, 179 N.E.3d 60, ¶ 21. Clark is 

entitled to request paper copies of public records, see R.C. 149.43(B)(6), and 
January Term, 2024

5

ODRC is required to promptly provide those copies, see R.C. 149.43(B)(1). ODRC 

did not do so here. Thus, absent some other reason why statutory damages should 

not be awarded, Clark is entitled to statutory damages.

{¶ 12} ODRC makes several arguments regarding why Clark is not entitled 

to statutory damages. ODRC first argues that the commissary price lists are not 

public records, because they do not meet the definition of records, which are 

defined as “any document” that “serves to document the organization, functions, 

policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the office,” R.C. 

149.011(G). The price lists, however, do document “the organization, functions, 

policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities” of ODRC—the price 

lists document the amount that ODRC charges inmates for commissary items. The 

price lists are therefore records as defined by R.C. 149.011(G).

{¶ 13} ODRC also argues that Clark’s public-records request was for 

information, not specific records. See State ex rel. Morgan v. New Lexington, 112 

Ohio St.3d 33, 2006-Ohio-6365, 857 N.E.2d 1208, ¶ 30 (requests for information 

are improper public-records requests). Clark, however, requested “an up-to-date 

paper copy of the commissary price list for each commissary window.” ODRC 

previously distributed an electronic copy of the price lists to Clark and has since

provided paper copies of the price lists to Clark. It follows that Clark requested 

records, not information.

{¶ 14} ODRC also argues that Clark did not make his public-records 

request to the correct records custodian, who ODRC asserts is a warden’s assistant 

who serves as the prison’s public-information officer. The statute, however, 

requires a requester to transmit the public-records request to the “public office or 

person responsible for the requested public records.” R.C. 149.43(C)(2). This is 

not an instance in which the requester transmitted the request to an employee or 

department whose duties did not include maintaining the requested records. The 

electronic correspondence that Clark submitted shows that the commissary 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

department maintains and sends out the price lists. And when Clark resubmitted 

his request as part of his grievance, Inspector Hoover granted the grievance and 

stated that he would provide Clark the price lists and then failed to do so.

{¶ 15} Finally, ODRC argues that statutory damages should be denied 

because it believes that Clark made his public-records request with the specific 

desire that the request be denied. In support, it cites Rhodes v. New Philadelphia, 

129 Ohio St.3d 304, 2011-Ohio-3279, 951 N.E.2d 782, ¶ 27, in which we stated

that “[w]hen a party requests access to public records with the specific desire for 

access to be denied, it cannot be said that the party is using the request in order to 

access public records; he is only feigning that intent.” Rhodes, however, involved 

a civil action filed by a public-records requester under R.C. 149.351 alleging a 

city’s improper destruction of public records. Id. at ¶ 13. But “Rhodes * * * is not 

apposite to a claim for statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(1).” State ex rel. 

DiFranco v. S. Euclid, 138 Ohio St.3d 367, 2014-Ohio-538, 7 N.E.3d 1136, ¶ 27, 

superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State ex rel. Cincinnati

Enquirer v. Cincinnati, 157 Ohio St.3d 290, 2019-Ohio-3876, 135 N.E.3d 772,

¶ 12. “The statutory language leaves no room for a determination that damages 

may be denied based on an inquiry into the requester’s state of mind.” Id. 

Moreover, ODRC has submitted no evidence showing that Clark desired that his 

request be denied. See State ex rel. Straughter v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 172 

Ohio St.3d 335, 2023-Ohio-1543, 223 N.E.3d 475, ¶ 13.

{¶ 16} Statutory damages are set at $100 per day for each business day the 

public office failed to comply with its obligations, starting with the day the 

requester filed the mandamus action, with a maximum award of $1,000. R.C. 

149.43(C)(2). Clark filed this mandamus action on March 20, 2023, and ODRC 

provided the records to him on April 4, meaning that he is entitled to the maximum 

$1,000 in statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2) for the 11 business days that 

ODRC failed to comply with its obligations.
January Term, 2024

7

{¶ 17} For his part, Clark argues that he should be awarded $12,000 in 

statutory damages, not $1,000. He argues that he requested three separate 

documents—the price lists for three different commissary windows. He also argues 

that each of his four kites constitutes a separate request—his September 8 kite to 

the commissary, his September 12 kite to the commissary, his September 13 kite 

filing a grievance, and his September 26 kite filing an appeal regarding his 

grievance. He therefore argues that ODRC denied 12 separate public-records 

requests. Clark is wrong. His September 8 kite requested a single category of 

records. He is entitled to a maximum of $1,000 in statutory damages for that 

request. See State ex rel. Ware v. Parikh, 172 Ohio St.3d 49, 2023-Ohio-2536, 221

N.E.3d 835, ¶ 31 (requester that made multiple requests to the same public office 

on the same day that “concerned the same general subject matter” was entitled to a 

single statutory-damages award). Moreover, his follow-up kites, which all 

involved correspondence related to the same original public-records request, were 

not new requests. See State ex rel. Fluty v. Raiff, 172 Ohio St.3d 542, 2023-Ohio3285, 225 N.E.3d 938, ¶ 40 (follow-up email regarding a public-records request 

was not a new request). “R.C. 149.43(C)(1) ‘does not permit stacking of statutory 

damages based on what is essentially the same records request.’ ” State ex rel. 

Ware v. Akron, 164 Ohio St.3d 557, 2021-Ohio-624, 174 N.E.3d 724, ¶ 22, quoting 

State ex rel. Dehler v. Kelly, 127 Ohio St.3d 309, 2010-Ohio-5724, 939 N.E.2d 828, 

¶ 4. Clark is entitled to $1,000 in statutory damages, which we award.

C. Court costs

{¶ 18} Clark also seeks an award of court costs.

{¶ 19} An award of court costs is mandatory if this court orders ODRC to 

comply with R.C. 149.43(B). R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(a)(i); accord State ex rel. Atakpu 

v. Shuler, 172 Ohio St.3d 18, 2023-Ohio-2266, 221 N.E.3d 808, ¶ 20. Because we

deny Clark’s claim for a writ of mandamus as moot, Clark is not entitled to court 

costs under R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(a)(i).
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

{¶ 20} In addition, court costs are mandatory if this court determines that 

ODRC acted in bad faith when it provided the records to Clark after he filed his 

mandamus action but before this court ordered it to do so. R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(a)(ii); 

accord Atakpu at ¶ 22. “The term ‘bad faith’ generally implies something more 

than bad judgment or negligence.” (Cleaned up.) State ex rel. McDougald v. 

Greene, 161 Ohio St.3d 130, 2020-Ohio-3686, 161 N.E.3d 575, ¶ 26. It “imports 

a dishonest purpose, moral obliquity, conscious wrongdoing, breach of a known 

duty through some ulterior motive or ill will partaking of the nature of fraud. It 

also embraces actual intent to mislead or deceive another.” (Cleaned up.) Id.

{¶ 21} Clark attempted multiple times to resolve his public-records request 

through the prison’s internal procedures before he filed this action. But he has not 

shown by clear and convincing evidence that ODRC intentionally misled or 

deceived him or otherwise acted with bad faith. We therefore deny Clark’s request 

for court costs.

III. CONCLUSION

{¶ 22} Because ODRC has already provided Clark with the records he had

requested, we deny his claim for a writ of mandamus as moot. We award Clark 

$1,000 in statutory damages. And we decline to award court costs.

Writ denied.

KENNEDY, C.J., and DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, and 

DETERS, JJ., concur.

FISCHER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would not award 

statutory damages.

__________________

Thomas Clark, pro se.

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

General, for respondent.

________________________