[Cite as Ware v. Mansfield Corr. Inst., 2018-Ohio-5446.]

{¶1} On July 18, 2018, requester Kimani Ware filed a complaint under 

R.C. 2743.75 alleging denial of access to public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B). 

Ware alleges that he sent letters to the Warden’s Assistant Office of respondent 

Mansfield Correctional Institution (ManCI) on April 30, 2018, and again on June 18, 

2018, requesting the following records: 

A copy of M.C.I. (Mansfield) Library Schedule 

A copy of M.C.I. (Mansfield) Religious Services Scheduling Calendar 

A copy of M.C.I. (Mansfield) Library Advisory Committee Forms from 

January 1st, 2015 through January 1st, 2018 

A copy of M.C.I. (Mansfield) Monthly Library Reports from December 5th, 

2017 through January 5th, 2018 

A copy of M.C.I. (Mansfield) Library Procedure Manual/Operating Manual 

(Complaint at 4-5.) Ware asserts that he did not receive the requested records, did not 

receive a written response from ManCI, and did not receive an explanation for denial of 

the requests. Ware seeks an order compelling ManCI to produce certification of its 

compliance with training in public records law pursuant to R.C. 149.43(E)(1), and for 

production of the requested records. Ware declined the court’s mediation services in 

this action. 

{¶2} On December 7, 2018, ManCI filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative, 

motion for summary judgment (Response). As grounds, ManCI asserts that Ware did 

KIMANI E. WARE 

 Requester 

 v. 

MANSFIELD CORRECTIONAL 

INSTITUTION 

 Respondent 

Case No. 2018-01386PQ 

Special Master Jeffery W. Clark 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
Case No. 2018-01386PQ -2- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

not provide affirmative evidence that he had actually mailed the alleged requests, and 

that ManCI rendered the claims moot after the filing of the complaint by providing copies 

of all requested records. 

{¶3} Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, provides a remedy for production of 

records under R.C. 2743.75 if the court of claims determines that a public office has 

denied access to public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B). The policy underlying the 

Act is that “open government serves the public interest and our democratic system.” 

State ex rel. Dann v. Taft, 109 Ohio St.3d 364, 2006-Ohio-1825, 848 N.E.2d 472, ¶ 20. 

Therefore, the Act is construed liberally in favor of broad access, and any doubt is 

resolved in favor of disclosure of public records. State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 

Ohio St.3d 391, 2008-Ohio-4788, 894 N.E.2d 686, ¶ 13. Claims under R.C. 2743.75 are 

determined using the standard of clear and convincing evidence. Hurt v. Liberty Twp., 

5th Dist. Delaware No. 17CAI050031, 2017-Ohio-7820, ¶ 27-30. 

Motion to Dismiss 

{¶4} In construing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), the court must 

presume that all factual allegations of the complaint are true and make all reasonable 

inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 

190, 192, 532 N.E.2d 753 (1988). Then, before the court may dismiss the complaint, it 

must appear beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to 

recovery. O’Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 245, 327 

N.E.2d 753 (1975). 

{¶5} Ware attested by affidavit that he “mailed a public records request on April 

30th, 2018 to the Warden’s Assistant at Mansfield Correctional Institution.” (Complaint 

at 3.) The request letter of that date bears the correct street address for ManCI. (Id. at 

4.) There is no requirement in R.C. 149.43 that a requester deliver a request using 

certified mail, or even that the request be made in writing. R.C. 149.43(B)(5). I find that 

the complaint sufficiently alleges that Ware’s public records request was made as 
Case No. 2018-01386PQ -3- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

described, and I recommend that the court deny ManCI’s motion to dismiss on this 

ground. 

{¶6} ManCI’s production of the requested records is not demonstrated on the 

face of the complaint, which otherwise sufficiently alleges failure of ManCI to respond to 

the requests. I recommend that the motion to dismiss on this ground be denied as well, 

and that the case be decided on the merits. 

Demand for Proof of Training 

{¶7} In his prayer for relief, Ware requests “an order compelling the respondent 

to produce a certified copy of its credentials that respondent complied with the 

educational training in accordance with division (E)(1) of section 149.43 of the revised 

code and division (B) of section 109.43 of the revised code.” (Complaint at 2.) Ware 

listed no record corresponding to this description when he made the public records 

requests on which this action is based. 

{¶8} A claim that a public office has failed to comply with R.C. 149.43(B) is not 

ripe until a specific request has been made and denied. Strothers v. Norton, 131 Ohio 

St.3d 359, 2012-Ohio-1007, 965 N.E.2d 282, ¶ 14; State ex rel. Bardwell v. Cordray, 

181 Ohio App.3d 661, 664, 2009-Ohio-1265, 910 N.E.2d 504, ¶ 5. I find that Ware has 

not shown that he first made a public records request for this record, and has thus not 

triggered any obligation for response by ManCI. Ware alleges no other authority that 

would entitle him to production of the requested “credentials” in this action. Even had 

such a request been made, I note that neither the warden’s assistant or any other 

employee of ManCI is an “elected official” as defined in R.C. 109.43(A)(2), and 

“respondent” therefore had no duty to comply with R.C. 109.43(B). 

{¶9} I recommend the court deny this portion of the claim. 

Failure of Timely Production and Suggestion of Mootness 

{¶10} In an action to enforce R.C. 149.43(B), a public office may produce the 

requested records prior to the court’s decision, and thereby render the claim for 
Case No. 2018-01386PQ -4- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

production moot. State ex rel. Striker v. Smith, 129 Ohio St.3d 168, 2011-Ohio-2878, 

950 N.E.2d 952, ¶ 18-22. ManCI asserts that subsequent to the filing of the complaint it 

provided Ware with all requested records. ManCI supports this assertion with a cover 

letter to Ware dated November 5, 2018, and a page from the Trumbull Correctional 

Institution (TCI) legal mail log showing receipt by Ware of correspondence from ManCI 

on November 13, 2018, both purportedly initialed by Ware. (Response, Exh. A at p. 2-

3.) The cover letter bears a correct street address for Ware’s current location at TCI. 

Notably, and contrary to the implication in ManCI’s motion to dismiss that the request 

had never been mailed, ManCI staff state in this correspondence that Ware’s April 30, 

2018 request was “received on May 4, 2018.” (Response, Exh A at p. 2.) The cover 

letter invites Ware to “please find the following documents as a complete response to 

your request:” followed by a list of records identical to the request wording of the April 

30, 2018 letter. ManCI further provides a copy of a U.S. Postal Service domestic return 

receipt dated November 13, 2018 showing acceptance by TCI, on Ware’s behalf, of 

correspondence from ManCI. (Id., Exh. A at p. 1.) ManCI did not provide the court with 

copies of the records purportedly enclosed with the cover letter. 

{¶11} I find that the evidence of a six-month delay between the public records 

request and production of the records, with no assertion that the records required legal 

review or redaction based on any exception, demonstrates that respondent failed to 

make the records available to requester within a reasonable period of time. R.C. 

149.43(B)(1). I further find that ManCI has rendered the claim for production moot by 

providing Ware with all requested records prior to the submission of this report and 

recommendation. 

Conclusion 

{¶12} Upon consideration of the pleadings and attachments, I recommend that 

the court find that respondent failed to timely respond to the public records request, but 

that the request is now moot. I recommend that court costs be assessed to respondent. 
Case No. 2018-01386PQ -5- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

{¶13} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), either party may file a written objection 

with the clerk of the Court of Claims of Ohio within seven (7) business days after 

receiving this report and recommendation. Any objection shall be specific and state with 

particularity all grounds for the objection. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the 

court’s adoption of any factual findings or legal conclusions in this report and 

recommendation unless a timely objection was filed thereto. R.C. 2743.75(G)(1). 

 

 JEFFERY W. CLARK 

 Special Master 

Filed December 20, 2018 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 1/11/19