Court Opinion

ID: 9904776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 20:06:48.376409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:25.326065
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State ex rel. Tenney v. Rice, 2023-Ohio-4269.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                            ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 TRUMBULL COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO ex rel.                                     CASE NO. 2023-T-0053
MICHAEL TENNEY,

                 Relator,                                 Original Action for Writ of Mandamus

        - vs -

THE HONORABLE: RONALD RICE,

                 Respondent.

                                           PER CURIAM
                                            OPINION

                                     Decided: November 27, 2023
                                     Judgment: Petition dismissed

Michael Tenney, pro se, PID# A704-630, Trumbull Correctional Institution, 5701 Burnett
Street, P.O. Box 640, Leavittsburg, OH 44430 (Relator).

Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Samantha L. Monroe, Assistant
Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH
44481 (For Respondent).

PER CURIAM.

        {¶1}     This matter is before the court on a complaint for writ of mandamus filed by

relator, Michael Tenney (“Mr. Tenney”), against respondent, Judge Ronald Rice of the

Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas (“respondent”), and respondent’s Civ.R.

12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and their respective replies, i.e., Mr.

Tenney’s “Motion to Dismiss Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss,” and respondent’s “Reply

to Motion to Dismiss for Writ of Mandamus.” For the reasons that follow, respondent’s

motion is granted, and Mr. Tenney’s petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed.
       {¶2}   Mr. Tenney is incarcerated in the Trumbull Correctional Institution. In June

2023, Mr. Tenney sent a “Formal Request for Documents” pursuant to R.C. 149.43 and

the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. 552, to the Trumbull County Clerk of

Courts and the Trumbull County Prosecutor’s Office seeking documents from his criminal

case, State v. Tenney, case no. 2017 CR 00159.

       {¶3}   Mr. Tenney alleged the clerk of courts partially fulfilled his request, sending

him “Partial Docket information, Bills of Indictment, and his Journal Entry.” However, the

clerk “did not provide * * * the Affidavit, Judgement Entry [sic], Investigative Reports, and

Reports from Arraignment Appearance, Preliminary Hearings, & Pre Trials [sic] up to

trial.” Mr. Tenney received a letter from the prosecutor’s office informing him that pursuant

to R.C. 149.43(B)(8), he is required, as a preliminary matter, to obtain a finding from the

judge who sentenced him, or the judge’s successor, that the information sought in the

public record is necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim.

       {¶4}   Mr. Tenney contends respondent has a duty to compel the clerk of courts

and the prosecutor’s office to release the public records he has requested.

       {¶5}   Respondent contends Mr. Tenney’s petition should be dismissed because

he failed to comply with R.C. 149.43(B)(8), and, thus, it fails to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted.

                                Predicate for Mandamus

       {¶6}   “A mandamus is a civil proceeding, extraordinary in nature since it can only

be maintained when there is no other adequate remedy to enforce clear legal rights.”

State ex rel. Widmer v. Mohney, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2007-G-2776, 2008-Ohio-1028,

¶ 31, citing State ex rel. Brammer v. Hayes, 164 Ohio St. 373, 130 N.E.2d 795 (1955).

“Mandamus is a writ issued to a public officer to perform an act that the law enjoins as a
                                             2

Case No. 2023-T-0053
duty resulting from his or her office.” Id., citing R.C. 2731.01. For a writ of mandamus to

issue, (1) the relator must establish a clear legal right to the relief prayed for; (2) the

respondent must have a clear legal duty to perform the act; and (3) the relator must have

no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Id. The Supreme Court

of Ohio has held that mandamus is the appropriate remedy to force compliance with the

public records statute. State ex rel. McGowan v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 78 Ohio

St.3d 518, 520, 678 N.E.2d 1388 (1997). Thus, persons seeking public records need not

establish the lack of an adequate remedy at law in order to be entitled to a writ of

mandamus. Id.

                            Civ.R. 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss

       {¶7}   “A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted is procedural in nature and tests the sufficiency of the complaint.” Huffman v.

Willoughby, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2007-L-040, 2007-Ohio-7120, ¶ 16, citing State ex rel.

Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545, 548, 605 N.E. 2d 378

(1992). “[W]hen a party files a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, all the factual

allegations of the complaint must be taken as true and all reasonable inferences must be

drawn in favor of the nonmoving party.” Byrd v. Faber, 57 Ohio St.3d 56, 60, 565 N.E.2d

584 (1991). “In order for a court to grant a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, it

must appear ‘“beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his

claim which would entitle him to relief.”’” Huffman at ¶ 18, quoting O’Brien v. Univ.

Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 245, 327 N.E.2d 753 (1975), quoting

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).

                                              3

Case No. 2023-T-0053
                                      R.C. 149.43(B)(8)

          {¶8}   In State ex rel. Ware v. Giavasis, 160 Ohio St.3d 383, 2020-Ohio-3700, 157

N.E.3d 710, the Supreme Court of Ohio explained an incarcerated person must first

obtain the approval of the sentencing judge before he is entitled to access “‘any public

record concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution.’” Id. at ¶ 6, quoting R.C.

149.43(B)(8). The court has characterized this language as “‘broad and encompassing.’”

Id., quoting State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409, 2006-Ohio-5858, 856

N.E.2d 966, ¶ 14 (involving former R.C. 149.43(B)(4), now R.C. 149.43(B)(8)).

          {¶9}   R.C. 149.43(B)(8) provides:

          {¶10} “A public office or person responsible for public records is not required to

permit a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a criminal conviction * * * to inspect or to

obtain a copy of any public record concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution * *

*, unless the request to inspect or to obtain a copy of the record is for the purpose of

acquiring information that is subject to release as a public record under this section and

the judge who imposed the sentence * * * with respect to the person, or the judge’s

successor in office, finds that the information sought in the public record is necessary to

support what appears to be a justiciable claim of the person.”

          {¶11} A review of Mr. Tenney’s petition reveals he never filed a R.C. 149.43(B)(8)

request to respondent. He is required to obtain the approval of respondent before he is

entitled to access “any public record concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution,”

which he has failed to do. Thus, his mandamus claim fails as a matter of law. Giavasis

at ¶ 6.

          {¶12} In Holder v. Chester Twp., 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2002-G-2461, 2002-Ohio-

7168, this court similarly concluded “relator’s petition is not legally sufficient to state a
                                               4

Case No. 2023-T-0053
proper claim because, in the absence of an allegation stating that the requirements of

R.C. 149.43(B)(4) [now R.C. 149.43(B)(8)] have been met, [relator] cannot prove that she

has a clear legal right to have access to the public documents in question.” Id. at ¶ 12.1

                                            R.C. 2969.25

        {¶13} In addition, Mr. Tenney’s petition does not comply with the requirements of

R.C. 2969.25.

        {¶14} Pursuant to R.C. 2969.25(A):

        {¶15} “At the time that an inmate commences a civil action or appeal against a

government entity or employee, the inmate shall file with the court an affidavit that

contains a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action that the inmate has

filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court. The affidavit shall include all

of the following for each of those civil actions or appeals:

        {¶16} “(1) A brief description of the nature of the civil action or appeal;

        {¶17} “(2) The case name, case number, and the court in which the civil action or

appeal was brought;

        {¶18} “(3) The name of each party to the civil action or appeal;

        {¶19} “(4) The outcome of the civil action or appeal, including whether the court

dismissed the civil action or appeal as frivolous or malicious under state or federal law or

rule of court, whether the court made an award against the inmate or the inmate’s counsel

of record for frivolous conduct under section 2323.51 of the Revised Code, another

1. Mr. Tenney also made his formal request for documents pursuant to the FOIA. However, the FOIA does
not apply to state agencies or officers. State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder, 76 Ohio St.3d
580, 582, 669 N.E.2d 835 (1996).

                                                   5

Case No. 2023-T-0053
statute, or a rule of court, and, if the court so dismissed the action or appeal or made an

award of that nature, the date of the final order affirming the dismissal or award.”

       {¶20} Pursuant to R.C 2969.25(C):

       {¶21} “If an inmate who files a civil action or appeal against a government entity

or employee seeks a waiver of the prepayment of the full filing fees assessed by the court

in which the action or appeal is filed, the inmate shall file with the complaint or notice of

appeal an affidavit that the inmate is seeking a waiver of the prepayment of the court’s

full filing fees and an affidavit of indigency. The affidavit of waiver and the affidavit of

indigency shall contain all of the following:

       {¶22} “(1) A statement that sets forth the balance in the inmate account of the

inmate for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier;

       {¶23} “(2) A statement that sets forth all other cash and things of value owned by

the inmate at that time.”

       {¶24} “‘The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply

with them subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.’” State ex rel. Norris v. Giavasis, 100

Ohio St.3d 371, 2003-Ohio-6609, 800 N.E.2d 365, ¶ 4, quoting State ex rel. White v.

Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5. Mr. Tenney failed to

comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) and 2969.25(C).

       {¶25} Thus, for this additional reason, Mr. Tenney’s petition must be dismissed.

       {¶26} Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted, and Mr. Tenney’s

petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed.

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J., MARY JANE TRAPP, J., ROBERT J. PATTON, J., concur.

                                                6

Case No. 2023-T-0053