Court Opinion

ID: 9392196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-04 15:08:43.326617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:30.129332
License: Public Domain

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

                              IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

    JEFFERY L. MARTIN                                   Case No. 2023-00249PQ

         Requester                                      Special Master Todd Marti

         v.                                             RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

    NEW PHILADELPHIA
    POLICE DEPARTMENT

         Respondent

        {¶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.

1All 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.
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-Ohio-
1581, ¶ 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