[Cite as Martin v. New Philadelphia Police Dept. , 2023
- Ohio
- 1491.]

IN T HE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

{¶1} This matter is before the spe cial master following a R.C. 2743 .75(D)(2) examination of the complaint. Based on the examination , the special master recommends that this case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I. Background. {¶2} Requester Jeffrey Martin had an encounter wit h two officers of the Respondent New Philadelphia Police Department (“the Department”)

. Mr. Martin requested and received a copy of the call record report describing the encounter. He believe s that the report inaccurately described the encounter and filed a personnel complaint with the De partment to address t h e matter

. Complaint , pp. 1

- 10 , 19

. 1 {¶3} Mr. Martin filed this case on April 3. 2023. The undersigned was assigned as the special master and has examined the complaint. Entry , filed April 11, 2023.
II. Ana lysis. A. This case should be di smissed because Requester’s claim is beyond this court’s s ubject matter jurisdiction.

1 All references to specific pages of the complaint are to the pages of the PDF copy posted on the court’s online docket. That said, it appears that the pages of the complaint as written were disordered, either as mailed to the court or as scanned. It seems that the pages appearing as pp. 7

- 8 online were origi n ally the second and third pag es of the complaint, that those pages were followed by the pages now appearing as pp. 9

- 10, and that the pages posted o nline as pp. 2

- 6 followed the pages posted as pp. 9

- 1 0. JEFFERY L. MARTIN Requester

v. NEW PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT Respondent Case No. 2023

- 00249PQ Special Master Todd Marti RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISSCase No. 2023

- 00249PQ

- 2

- RECOMMENDATION TO DI SMISS

{¶4} R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) requires the special master to examine complaints and authorizes him to recommend dismissal if appropriate. D ismissa l is appropriate if the claims a re beyond this court’s subject matter jurisdiction

. Isreal v. Franklin Cty. Clerk , Ct. of Cl. No. 2019

- 00547PQ, 2019

- Ohio

- 2630, ¶¶ 9

- 10. That is the case here. {¶5} The Court of Claims “may exercise only such powers as are direc tly conferred by legislative act ion.” State ex rel. DeWine v. C ourt of Claims of Ohio , 130 Ohio St.3d 244, 2011

- Ohio

- 5283, 957 N.E.2d 280, ¶ 19. The extent of this court’s jurisdiction over public records matters is set by R.C. 2743.75(A)(1). It limits tha t jurisdiction to claims allegin g violations of R.C. 149.43(B)

. T he c ourt therefore lacks jurisdiction over records related claims not covered by R.C. 149.43(B)

. See e.g. Sell v. Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas , Ct. of Cl. No. 2022

- 00867PQ, 2023

- Ohio

- 67, ¶ 5 (no jurisdiction over
c laims for court records); Speros v. Secy. of State , Ct. of Cl. No. 2017

- 00389

- PQ, 2017

- Ohio

- 8453, ¶ 27 (No jurisdiction over claims under R.C. 149.351, R.C. 149.352, R.C. 2913.42); Robin son v. Village of Alexandria , Ct. of C l. No. 2017

- 00808PQ, 2018

- Ohio

1 581, ¶ 16 (no jurisdiction over claims under R.C. 149.39 and R.C. 149.40). {¶6} R.C. 149.43(B) addresses the public offices’ duties to produce public records after those records have been c reated. It does not require the creatio n of records that should have be en , but were not created , or the correction of existing but allegedly inaccurate records

. State ex rel. Ware v. DeWine , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19AP

- 161, 2019

- Ohio

- 5203, ¶ 48 ; Ryan v. City of Ashtabula , Ct. of Cl. Nos. 2022

- 00660PQ, 2022

- 00665PQ, 2022

- 0068 0PQ, 2023

- Ohio

- 621, ¶ ¶ 19 , 20

. Instead, claims of records falsification are dealt with through the criminal process. R.C. 2921.12(A)(2). {¶7} Mr. Martin does not claim that the Department wrongfully withheld or redacted a publi c record , claims that would be w ithin the scope of R.C. 149.43(B). Instead, he seeks to compel the D epartment to create a new, in his view more accurate , report or to at least correct the existing report. This court lack s jurisdiction to entertain such a c laim or grant such relief becaus e it is beyond the scope of 149.43(B). It similarly lack s jurisdiction to address alleged violations of R.C. 2921. 12(A)(2 ) because the “Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction to determine whether or not a crime has occur red[.]” Evans v. Ohio Dept. of R ehab. & Correction , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19AP

- 743, 2020

-Case No. 2023

- 00249PQ

- 3

- RECOMMENDATION TO DI SMISS

Ohio

- 3191, ¶ 16. See also Gunnell v. Secy. of State , Ct. of Cl . No. 2014

- 00832, 2015

- Ohio

- 5617, ¶ 17

. III. C onclusion. {¶8} The special master recommends that the court dism iss this case pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) because Requester’s claim is beyond the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. {¶9} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), either par ty may file a written objection with the clerk of the Court of Claims of Ohio within seven (7) business days after receiv ing 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 th is report and recommendation unless a timely objection was filed thereto. R.C. 2743.75(G)(1).

TODD MARTI Special Master

Filed April 13 , 2023 Sent to S.C. Reporter 5/4/23