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

ex rel. Mobley v. Tyack, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-2692.]

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-2692

THE STATE EX REL. MOBLEY v. TYACK, PROS. ATTY.

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

may be cited as State ex rel. Mobley v. Tyack, Slip Opinion No. 

2024-Ohio-2692.]

Mandamus—Relator’s public-records request did not identify with reasonable 

clarity the records he was seeking from county prosecutor’s office—Writ 

and request for statutory damages and court costs denied.

(No. 2023-1094—Submitted May 7, 2024—Decided July 18, 2024.)

IN MANDAMUS.

__________________

The per curiam opinion below was joined by KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, 

DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, and DETERS, JJ.

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Relator, Alphonso Mobley Jr., filed an original action in mandamus 

against respondent, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney G. Gary Tyack. Mobley 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

seeks the production of public records and awards of statutory damages and court 

costs. We deny the writ and decline to award statutory damages or court costs.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

{¶ 2} On July 20, 2023, Mobley sent the Franklin County prosecutor’s 

office a public-records request by certified mail, which the office received on July 

25. Although Mobley’s request listed five items, he states in his brief that he is 

now seeking relief only as to the fifth item: “a paper copy of . . . Prosecuting 

Attorney funds and Accounts: Equitable Sharing; Law Enforcement Trust Fund; 

Furtherance of Justice 2016-2021.”1(Emphasis deleted.)

{¶ 3} Mobley filed this mandamus action on August 29. On September 25, 

the prosecutor’s office responded to Mobley in writing. Regarding the fifth

requested item, the office wrote that it had determined the request “to be vague and 

voluminous and, therefore, unenforceable.”

{¶ 4} The prosecutor’s office filed a motion to dismiss. We denied the 

motion, granted an alternative writ, and ordered the submission of evidence and 

briefs. 2023-Ohio-4259.

{¶ 5} Mobley filed his evidence on December 11. In an affidavit he 

submitted as evidence, Mobley elaborates on the fifth item in his request. He cites

a statute and an internal policy of the prosecutor’s office that refer to annual reports

and statements relating to the prosecutor’s Law Enforcement Trust Fund, 

Furtherance of Justice Fund, and Equitable Sharing Agreement with the federal 

government. On December 19, the office sent Mobley a follow-up response. 

Although the office maintained that Mobley’s records request was vague and 

1. Mobley’s complaint also sought relief regarding a public-records request he allegedly sent to the 

prosecutor’s office on November 16, 2022. But neither his evidence nor his brief mentions the 

November 16 request, so he has waived any issue regarding that request. See State ex rel. Stuart v. 

Greene, 2020-Ohio-3685, ¶ 10 (the relator waived issue raised in complaint but not addressed in 

brief).
January Term, 2024

3

voluminous, the office produced to him 14 documents of the type identified in the 

fifth item of his request. Mobley does not address this production.

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 R.C. 149.43(B). 

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

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

sought and that the prosecutor’s office has a clear legal duty to provide that relief. 

State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 2015-Ohio-974, ¶ 10.

{¶ 7} Mobley argues that the prosecutor’s office violated R.C. 149.43(B) 

by denying his records request as vague and voluminous. It is the responsibility of 

the person requesting public records to identify with reasonable clarity the records 

requested. State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 2018-Ohio-5110, ¶ 22. 

Mobley’s request sought “Prosecuting Attorney funds and Accounts: Equitable 

Sharing; Law Enforcement Trust Fund; Furtherance of Justice 2016-2021.” Such 

a request does not identify with reasonable clarity the records Mobley is seeking in 

that it does not specify any records relating to the prosecutor’s funds.

{¶ 8} In his brief, Mobley cites R.C. 325.12(E) and a policy of the 

prosecutor’s office requiring the submission of certain reports and statements 

relating to the prosecutor’s funds, and he argues that the office should have 

produced these documents to him. But Mobley’s records request did not cite the

statute or policy, nor did it specify the documents he was requesting. And he cites 

no authority for the proposition that a requester may employ a brief to cure an 

otherwise vague public-records request—which is what his brief attempts to do 

here.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

{¶ 9} Finally, Mobley points out that his records request tracks the language

of a records category in the records-retention schedule of the prosecutor’s office,

and he argues that he requested “the records created and maintained” by using that 

language. But in his request, Mobley neither referred to the records-retention 

schedule nor requested records maintained pursuant to it. And even if he had 

requested records maintained pursuant to the schedule, “a ‘records request is not 

specific merely because it names a broad category of records listed within an 

agency’s retention schedule,’ ” State ex rel. Zidonis v. Columbus State Community 

College, 2012-Ohio-4228, ¶ 26, quoting State ex rel. Zidonis v. Columbus State 

Community College, 2011-Ohio-6817, ¶ 5 (10th Dist.).

{¶ 10} Because Mobley’s records request did not identify with reasonable 

clarity the records he is seeking, we deny his request for a writ ordering the 

prosecutor to produce the records.

B. Statutory damages and court costs

{¶ 11} Mobley also argues that he is entitled to awards of statutory damages 

and court costs. “Statutory damages shall be awarded if a requester of public 

records transmits a written request to a public office by hand delivery, electronic 

submission, or certified mail and the public office or person responsible for public 

records fails to comply with its obligations under R.C. 149.43(B).” State ex rel. 

Atakpu v. Shuler, 2023-Ohio-2266, ¶ 13; accord R.C. 149.43(C)(2). Similarly, 

court costs shall be awarded when “the court orders the public office or the person 

responsible for the public record to comply with [R.C. 149.43(B)].” R.C. 

149.43(C)(3)(a)(i); Atakpu at ¶ 20.

{¶ 12} Because we deny the writ and conclude that the prosecutor’s office 

correctly determined that Mobley’s records request was impermissibly vague, we 

conclude that the prosecutor did not fail to comply with his obligations under R.C. 

149.43(B). In addition, Mobley filed an affidavit of indigency, so he has not 

incurred costs. Mobley is thus not entitled to statutory damages or court costs.
January Term, 2024

5

III. CONCLUSION

{¶ 13} Because Mobley’s records request did not identify with reasonable 

clarity the records he is seeking, we deny his request for a writ of mandamus. We 

also decline to award statutory damages or court costs.

Writ denied.

_________________

Alphonso Mobley Jr., pro se.

G. Gary Tyack, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thomas W. 

Ellis, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.

_________________