Court Opinion

ID: 9393430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-10 13:05:31.393201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:53.219439
License: Public Domain

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State
ex rel. Straughter v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1543.]

                                           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-1543
 THE STATE EX REL. STRAUGHTER v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION
                                     AND CORRECTION.

  [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
 may be cited as State ex rel. Straughter v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Slip
                             Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1543.]
Mandamus—Public-records requests—Inmate does not dispute public office’s
        representation that it has provided to him all kites he requested—Public
        office has not demonstrated that inmate made his requests solely with
        expectation that they would be denied and he could then collect statutory
        damages—Writ denied as moot, $1,000 in statutory damages awarded, and
        request for court costs denied.
    (No. 2022-0983—Submitted February 28, 2023—Decided May 10, 2023.)
                                       IN MANDAMUS.
                                   __________________
        Per Curiam.
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

       {¶ 1} Relator, Valdez J. Straughter, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel
respondent, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“DRC”), to
provide documents in response to public-records requests he submitted, to pay him
statutory damages, and to pay court costs. We previously denied DRC’s motion to
dismiss Straughter’s complaint and granted an alternative writ. 168 Ohio St.3d
1412, 2022-Ohio-3636, 196 N.E.3d 837. We now deny as moot the writ of
mandamus and award Straughter $1,000 in statutory damages. We decline to award
court costs.
                                    Background
       {¶ 2} In State ex rel. Mobley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 169 Ohio
St.3d 39, 2022-Ohio-1765, 201 N.E.3d 853, ¶ 26, we held that prison kites are
public records subject to disclosure under R.C. 149.43. Less than two weeks after
our decision in Mobley was released, Straughter, who is an inmate at the London
Correctional Institution, sent a request by prison kite for three records. DRC
indicated that it would provide the first requested record but that the other two
records “are Electronic Kites and the IIS Office does not provide copies of kites,
only ICR/Grievances.” DRC referred Straughter to a DRC employee “regarding
the process to obtain copies of kites.”
       {¶ 3} Within a few hours after DRC sent its response, Straughter sent a
second request, formally “making a public records request pursuant to Ohio
Revised Code 149.43(B)” for the two kites DRC had declined to provide. DRC
again denied the request, stating that “[k]ites are not available as public records.”
The same day, Straughter submitted another public-records request for three
additional kites. DRC denied the request.
       {¶ 4} The next day, Straughter sent a request to the DRC employee he had
been referred to, requesting four kites he had previously requested and one new
one. DRC again denied the request.

                                          2
                                January Term, 2023

        {¶ 5} Two days later, Straughter requested another kite. In response to that
request, after denying it, DRC asked Straughter to “[p]lease refrain from asking the
same questions regarding the same subject as the response remains the same in
accordance with policy.” DRC gave Straughter a “formal directive, in writing, to
stop the repetitive requests surrounding this request.”
        {¶ 6} Straughter then filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in this court.
After we issued an alternative writ, Straughter submitted evidence and the parties
filed merit briefs.
                                      Analysis
                           The mandamus claim is moot
        {¶ 7} Mandamus is an appropriate remedy by which to compel compliance
with Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43. R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(b). To prevail in
a public-records mandamus action, the relator must prove, by clear and convincing
evidence, that the requested records exist and that they are public records
maintained by the office that received the request. See State ex rel. Cordell v.
Paden, 156 Ohio St.3d 394, 2019-Ohio-1216, 128 N.E.3d 179, ¶ 8.
        {¶ 8} As his first proposition of law, Straughter argues that the kites he
requested are public records that should have been provided to him. DRC responds
that the requests are moot because on November 8, 2022, DRC provided Straughter
with copies of the kites that he had requested. Straughter did not file a reply brief
disputing DRC’s contention that it has provided all the requested kites. We
therefore deny the writ of mandamus as moot. See State ex rel. Striker v. Smith,
129 Ohio St.3d 168, 2011-Ohio-2878, 950 N.E.2d 952, ¶ 22 (a public-records
mandamus claim generally becomes moot when the public office provides the
requested documents).
                                 Statutory damages
        {¶ 9} Under R.C. 149.43(C)(2), a requester of public records is entitled to
recover statutory damages when (1) he has submitted a written public-records

                                          3
                                SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

request “by hand delivery, electronic submission, or certified mail,” (2) the request
“fairly describes the public record or class of public records to the public office or
person responsible for the requested public records,” and (3) “a court determines
that the public office or the person responsible for public records failed to comply
with an obligation” imposed by R.C. 149.43(B). Statutory damages accrue at $100
for each business day during which the public office failed to comply with R.C.
149.43(B), beginning with the day on which the requester filed a mandamus action
to recover statutory damages, up to a maximum of $1,000. R.C. 149.43(C)(2).
           {¶ 10} DRC does not dispute that it breached its obligations under the
Public Records Act. Straughter filed this mandamus action on August 11, 2022, so
the potential statutory damages reached the $1,000 maximum long before the
records were produced on November 8.
           {¶ 11} But DRC argues that statutory damages should not be awarded,
because “[i]t is clear from the circumstances surrounding this case that [Straughter]
did not actually want the records requested, but instead wanted the request to be
denied in order to obtain statutory damages.” In support of this argument, DRC
cites Rhodes v. New Philadelphia, 129 Ohio St.3d 304, 2011-Ohio-3279, 951
N.E.2d 782, ¶ 27, for the proposition that “[w]hen a party requests access to public
records with the specific desire for access to be denied, it cannot be said that the
party is using the request in order to access public records; he is only feigning that
intent.”
           {¶ 12} In Rhodes, the requester sent public-records requests in 2007 to eight
political subdivisions for reel-to-reel police tape recordings made between 1975
and 1995. Id. at ¶ 2-3. When some of those recordings were located, he did not
ask to listen to them, to receive transcripts of them, or to have them copied for his
use. Id. at ¶ 3. Nor did he pursue claims against the departments that had destroyed
the recordings pursuant to valid records-retention schedules. Instead, he sought
statutory damages from only the one department that had improperly destroyed the

                                             4
                                     January Term, 2023

recordings, claiming to have been “aggrieved” by the destruction.1 Id. at ¶ 4. We
rejected the claim, holding that the requester was not “aggrieved” by the destruction
of recordings he never wanted in the first place. Id. at ¶ 27.
         {¶ 13} By contrast, DRC has not demonstrated that Straughter made his
requests solely with the expectation that they would be denied and he could then
collect statutory damages. DRC suggests that Straughter made his requests when
he did—shortly after Mobley was decided—to “take advantage of the situation,
assuming that in all likelihood, DRC central office would not be able to
communicate or educate the warden’s [sic] administrative assistants as to this
significant change in the law in such a short period of time.” This is pure
speculation. Here, unlike in Rhodes, no evidence that Straughter’s requests were
shams has been introduced.
         {¶ 14} Alternatively, DRC claims that Straughter had access to the
requested kites at all times through his JPay account. But DRC has not established
that alleged fact by filing an affidavit or other evidence. DRC’s bare allegation that
Straughter could have accessed the kites another way does not prove that he
requested them from DRC in the expectation that his request would be denied.
         {¶ 15} Finally, DRC argues that Straughter’s choice to continue prosecuting
this case even though the mandamus portion is moot “further proves the point that
he is just attempting to get a statutory damages award.” But the fact that a public-
records requester continues to pursue statutory damages despite the mootness of the
underlying mandamus claim reveals nothing about the requester’s underlying
motive for originally making the request. We have long held that even though a
mandamus action is moot, statutory damages may be awarded based on the
unreasonable amount of time the public office had taken to provide the requested
records. See, e.g., State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 156 Ohio St.3d 13,

1. R.C. 149.351(B) authorizes any person who is “aggrieved” by the removal or destruction of public
records to file suit and recover $1,000 for each violation, up to a maximum of $10,000.

                                                5
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2018-Ohio-5108, 123 N.E.3d 887, ¶ 20-22. DRC’s argument would require us to
overrule Kesterson and to deny statutory damages whenever the public office has
made an untimely production of records.
                                     Court costs
       {¶ 16} Straughter requests an award of court costs. Because Straughter filed
an affidavit of indigency in this matter, there are no court costs to award.
                                    Conclusion
       {¶ 17} We deny the writ of mandamus as moot and award Straughter $1,000
in statutory damages. The request for court costs is denied.
                                                                         Writ denied.
       KENNEDY, C.J., and DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, and
DETERS, JJ.
       FISCHER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would not award
statutory damages.
                               _________________
       Valdez J. Straughter, pro se.
       Dave Yost, Attorney General, and John H. Bates, Assistant Attorney
General, for respondent.
                               _________________

                                          6