Huff v. Brown
941 N.W.2d 515
Neb.2020Background
- Inmate Herchel H. Huff submitted a 15-part public records request to Furnas County Sheriff Kurt Kapperman on Sept. 23, 2018; most requests were denied as "no responsive records," and Kapperman demanded a $750 deposit to produce Huff’s jail/medical records.
- Huff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus under the Nebraska public records statutes seeking production; Kapperman answered that he was no longer sheriff (Doug Brown had since taken office).
- The district court allowed substitution of Brown for Kapperman, admitted Huff’s affidavit as evidence, and granted mandamus in part — ordering production of many records, directing the sheriff to investigate other requests, and waiving fees due to Huff’s indigence.
- The court denied mandamus only as to medical records of third parties and records belonging to other county officials.
- Sheriff Brown appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed substitution but reversed the portions of the mandamus granting production for (1) records for which Huff failed to timely respond to a fee estimate and (2) records the sheriff said did not exist because Huff failed to show the sheriff had a clear duty to provide them; the matter was remanded with directions to deny Huff’s petition in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Huff) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Substitution of current sheriff as defendant | Petition targeted the office; substitution is proper | Action against former sheriff abated when he left office | Substitution proper; office duty transfers to successor (affirmed) |
| 2. Duty to produce records after requester failed to respond to fee estimate under §84-712(4) | Fees should be waived for indigent requester; mandamus still proper | Statute gives requester 10 business days to respond; if no response, custodian need not proceed | No duty where requester failed to timely respond; mandamus improperly granted for those records (reversed) |
| 3. Sufficiency of affidavit as sole evidence to show records exist or that sheriff is custodian | Huff’s affidavit establishes denial and entitlement to records | Affidavit alone insufficient; no evidence sheriff actually possessed or was custodian of requested records | Affidavit alone did not make prima facie case that sheriff had duty; mandamus improperly granted as to records sheriff said did not exist (reversed) |
| 4. Court-ordered fee waiver and ordering sheriff to obtain/produce records not in his possession | Court may equitably waive fees and compel investigation/production | Court cannot compel sheriff to produce records not in his custody or waive statutory fees without basis | Court abused discretion to compel production/investigation of records not shown to be sheriff’s; fee-waiver question not reached on merits because relief reversed (mandamus portions reversed; remanded to deny petition) |
Key Cases Cited
- Aksamit Resource Mgmt. v. Nebraska Pub. Power Dist., 299 Neb. 114 (discussing mandamus as discretionary extraordinary remedy and standards for public-records mandamus)
- Evertson v. City of Kimball, 278 Neb. 1 (construing “of or belonging to” language to include records a public body is entitled to possess, especially re: private-party possession)
- State ex rel. Neb. Health Care Assn. v. Dept. of Health, 255 Neb. 784 (explaining relator’s burden to show requested material is a public record under §84-712.01)
- State ex rel. Rhiley v. Nebraska State Patrol, 301 Neb. 241 (defining mandamus requisites: clear right, clear duty, and lack of adequate remedy)
- Russell v. Clarke, 15 Neb. App. 221 (affirming denial of mandamus where requester failed to rebut custodian’s assertion about records or payment requirement)