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

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

{¶1} This matter is before the special 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 with 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 

believes that the report inaccurately described the encounter and filed a personnel 

complaint with the Department to address the 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. Analysis. 

A. This case should be dismissed because Requester’s claim is beyond 

this court’s subject 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 originally the 

second and third pages of the complaint, that those pages were followed by the pages now appearing as 

pp. 9-10, and that the pages posted online as pp. 2-6 followed the pages posted as pp. 9-10. 

JEFFERY L. MARTIN

 Requester

 v. 

NEW PHILADELPHIA 

POLICE DEPARTMENT

 Respondent

Case No. 2023-00249PQ

Special Master Todd Marti

RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS
Case No. 2023-00249PQ -2- RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

{¶4} R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) requires the special master to examine complaints and 

authorizes him to recommend dismissal if appropriate. Dismissal is appropriate if the 

claims are 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 directly conferred 

by legislative action.” State ex rel. DeWine v. Court 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 that jurisdiction to claims 

alleging violations of R.C. 149.43(B). The court 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 

claims 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); Robinson v. Village of Alexandria, Ct. of Cl. No. 2017-00808PQ, 2018-Ohio1581, ¶ 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 created. It does not require the creation of records that 

should have been, 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, 2022-00680PQ, 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 public record, claims that would be within the scope of R.C. 149.43(B). Instead, he 

seeks to compel the Department to create a new, in his view more accurate, report or to 

at least correct the existing report. This court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such a claim 

or grant such relief because it is beyond the scope of 149.43(B). It similarly lacks

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 occurred[.]” 

Evans v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Correction, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19AP-743, 2020-
Case No. 2023-00249PQ -3- RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

Ohio-3191, ¶ 16. See also Gunnell v. Secy. of State, Ct. of Cl. No. 2014-00832, 2015-

Ohio-5617, ¶ 17. 

III. Conclusion. 

{¶8} The special master recommends that the court dismiss 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 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).

TODD MARTI

Special Master

Filed April 13, 2023

Sent to S.C. Reporter 5/4/23