Court Opinion

ID: 9949704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 14:09:43.671938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:44.970921
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Barker v. Adult Parole Auth., 2024-Ohio-823.]

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                             SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 MAHONING COUNTY

                            STATE EX REL. DUSTIN BARKER,

                                                 Relator,

                                                         v.

                                ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY,

                                              Respondent.

                        OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                         Case No. 23 MA 0079

                                           Writ of Mandamus

                                         BEFORE:
                   Carol Ann Robb, Cheryl L. Waite, Mark A. Hanni, Judges.

                                               JUDGMENT:
                                                Dismissed.

 Dustin Barker, pro se, and

 Atty. John H. Bates, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

                                             Dated: March 1, 2024
                                                                                        –2–

 PER CURIAM.

       {¶1}     Relator Dustin Barker, an inmate at Ohio State Penitentiary (OSP), has filed
this original action seeking a writ of mandamus directing Respondent Adult Parole
Authority (APA) to comply with his request for records made pursuant to R.C. 149.43.
The APA has filed a motion to dismiss. It argues that Barker has not met inmate filing
requirements, his public records request is insufficiently detailed, and the records he
seeks are exempt from disclosure.
       {¶2}     In a notice dated June 21, 2023, Barker was informed that following his
transitional control screening it had been decided that he was being denied transitional
control based upon APA reviewer discretion. The notice was issued on authority of the
Parole Board Chair and was signed by Michelle Franko, identified as a Parole Board
Parole Officer. Barker seeks records from APA related to its decision denying him
transitional control from OSP. He also wants records of all Officer Franko’s approvals
and denials of parole and transitional control according to age, race, gender, and religion.
       {¶3}     The Ohio Public Records Act provides that upon request, “all public records
responsive to the request shall be promptly prepared and made available for inspection
to any person at all reasonable times during regular business hours.” R.C. 149.43(B)(1).
A person allegedly aggrieved by the failure to make a public record available “may
commence a mandamus action to obtain a judgment that orders the public office or
person responsible for the public record to comply with [R.C. 149.43(B)] * * *.” R.C.
149.43(C)(1).
       {¶4}     “In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the relator must establish a
clear legal right to the relief prayed for, that respondent has a clear legal duty to perform
the requested act, and that relator has no plain and adequate remedy at law.” State ex
rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson, 69 Ohio St.3d 489, 490, 633 N.E.2d 1128 (1994). Relators
seeking public records in mandamus, however, need not establish the lack of an
adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Am. Civ. Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc. v. Cuyahoga
Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 128 Ohio St.3d 256, 2011-Ohio-625, 943 N.E.2d 553, ¶ 24.

Case No. 23 MA 0079
                                                                                      –3–

       {¶5}   Under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), we must presume all of the factual allegations in the
petition are true and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. State
ex rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson, 69 Ohio St.3d 489, 490, 633 N.E.2d 1128 (1994). A petition
may only be dismissed when, having viewed the complaint in this way, it appears beyond
doubt the relator can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to the relief requested.
Goudlock v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 398, 2008-Ohio-4787, 894 N.E.2d 692, ¶ 7
       {¶6}   Under R.C. 149.43(A)(1), “public record” is defined generally as any record
“kept by any public office * * *.” However, the statute exempts certain records from this
definition. One such exemption set forth in R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(b) is directly on point here:
       “Public record” does not mean any of the following:
       (b) Records pertaining to probation and parole proceedings, to proceedings
       related to the imposition of community control sanctions and post-release
       control sanctions, or to proceedings related to determinations under section
       2967.271 of the Revised Code regarding the release or maintained
       incarceration of an offender to whom that section applies[.]
       {¶7}   Even presuming all of the factual allegations in Barker’s complaint are true
and making all reasonable inferences in his favor, the legal barrier remains. The records
Barker seeks are categorically exempt from disclosure under the specific provisions of
R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(b), which explicitly excludes records related to probation, parole, and
similar proceedings from the definition of public record.         Despite any favorable
interpretation of his claims, it is beyond doubt that Barker can prove no set of facts to
circumvent this statutory exemption. Consequently, Barker is unable to establish a clear
legal right to the relief he requests, as the very nature of the records he seeks places
them beyond the realm of public disclosure.
       {¶8}   Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the
APA’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this original action in mandamus is
DISMISSED. Writ DENIED. Any and all pending motions and unresolved filings are
hereby dismissed as moot.

Case No. 23 MA 0079
                                                                                     –4–

      {¶9}   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Civ.R. 58, that the Clerk of the
Mahoning County Court of Appeals shall immediately serve notice of this judgment upon
all parties, including unrepresented or self-represented parties, and make a note of it on
the docket. Costs assessed to Relator Dustin Barker.

 JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB

 JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE

 JUDGE MARK A. HANNI

Case No. 23 MA 0079