Court Opinion

ID: 9892531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 13:09:43.65076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:13:58.213680
License: Public Domain

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State
ex rel. Payne v. Rose, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3801.]

                                           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. 2023-OHIO-3801
                          THE STATE EX REL. PAYNE v. ROSE.
  [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
may be cited as State ex rel. Payne v. Rose, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3801.]
Mandamus—Public-records requests—R.C. 149.43—When requested record is
        provided to requester by public office prior to instituting action, requester
        does not have a cognizable claim in mandamus—Writ and request for
        statutory damages denied.
   (No. 2022-1548—Submitted August 22, 2023—Decided October 24, 2023.)
                                       IN MANDAMUS.
                                   __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 1} This is an original action in mandamus brought under Ohio’s Public
Records Act, R.C. 149.43, by relator, Kevin L. Payne, against respondent, Kelly
Rose, who is employed by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
(“ODRC”) as an inspector at the Richland Correctional Institution (“RCI”). Payne
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

seeks a writ of mandamus ordering Rose to produce a copy of a support ticket.
Payne also seeks an award of statutory damages. We deny the requested relief.
                               I. BACKGROUND
       {¶ 2} At all times relevant to this case, Payne was an inmate at RCI. On
August 4, 2022, he sent a public-records request to Rose through RCI’s “JPay”
electronic-kite-communication system, which is a means of communication
between inmates and prison staff, for a copy of JPay support ticket number MACI
1220002928, among other things. That same day, Rose informed Payne that he
would need to pay for all requested copies.
       {¶ 3} On August 19, Payne sent a follow-up kite to the inspector’s office at
RCI, stating that he had paid for the copy of the support ticket but had not received
it. Three days later, Samantha Daugherty, who works in the inspector’s office,
responded to Payne and informed him that his requested record could not be found.
As part of her response, Daugherty suggested to Payne that if the requested copy
was a communication between Payne and JPay, then Payne might want to contact
JPay. Daugherty explained, “[W]e do not have access to view or even print
communication[s] with JPAY.”
       {¶ 4} According to an affidavit submitted by Rose in this case, JPay is an
ODRC vendor that provides the service that permits kites to be sent between
inmates and prison staff.      Rose attests that because ODRC cannot access
communications that inmates submit directly to JPay staff, Rose contacted JPay,
obtained the requested record, and provided a copy of it to Payne on November 15.
Rose attached as an exhibit to his affidavit a copy of the record that he had produced
to Payne.
       {¶ 5} On December 15, Payne brought this original action seeking a writ of
mandamus ordering Rose to produce a copy of the requested record and seeking an
award of statutory damages. After we denied Rose’s motion to dismiss and granted

                                          2
                                January Term, 2023

an alternative writ, Payne and Rose filed evidence and merit briefs. Payne did not
file a reply brief.
                                  II. ANALYSIS
                                   A. Mandamus
        {¶ 6} Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel compliance with R.C.
149.43. State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State
Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288, 2006-Ohio-903, 843 N.E.2d 174, ¶ 6;
R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(b). To obtain the requested writ, Payne must show that he has
a clear legal right to the requested relief and that Rose has a clear legal duty to
provide it. State ex rel. Ellis v. Maple Hts. Police Dept., 158 Ohio St.3d 25, 2019-
Ohio-4137, 139 N.E.3d 873, ¶ 5.
        {¶ 7} Payne argues that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling
Rose to produce a copy of the support ticket. The undisputed evidence establishes
that on November 15, 2022, Rose produced a copy of the ticket to Payne.
        {¶ 8} Generally, a mandamus claim becomes moot when the respondent
produces the requested record to the relator. See State ex rel. Martin v. Greene,
156 Ohio St.3d 482, 2019-Ohio-1827, 129 N.E.3d 419, ¶ 7. But in Martin, unlike
here, the requester received the record after he brought his mandamus action. The
requester in Martin therefore had a cognizable claim in mandamus when he brought
his action. Here, by contrast, Payne received his requested record before instituting
this action. Therefore, at this action’s inception, Payne never had a cognizable
claim in mandamus. Given this distinction, we deny Payne’s mandamus claim
outright, rather than deny it as moot.
                               B. Statutory damages
        {¶ 9} A requester who transmits a fairly described public-records request
by an authorized-delivery method is entitled to an award of statutory damages if a
court determines that the public office responsible for the requested public record
failed to comply with an obligation under R.C. 149.43(B). R.C. 149.43(C)(2).

                                         3
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

       {¶ 10} Payne claims that he is entitled to statutory damages because he sent
his public-records request by electronic kite and Rose failed to comply with R.C.
149.43(B)(1). For his part, Rose counters with several arguments why Payne
should not be awarded statutory damages. But we need not evaluate Rose’s
counterarguments to decide this aspect of the case, because a straightforward
application of R.C. 149.43(C)(2) dictates that statutory damages are unavailable:
Payne received the requested record prior to filing his mandamus action and
therefore never had a cognizable claim in mandamus under the Public Records Act.
Accordingly, statutory damages did not accrue under the statute.
                              III. CONCLUSION
       {¶ 11} Payne’s request for a writ of mandamus and an award of statutory
damages is denied.
                                                                      Writ denied.
       KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER,
and DETERS, JJ., concur.
                              _________________
       Kevin L. Payne, pro se.
       Dave Yost, Attorney General, and D. Chadd McKitrick, Assistant Attorney
General, for respondent.
                              _________________

                                        4