State ex rel. Bey v. Ohio Court of Claims
2021 Ohio 2200
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Relator Vincent El Alan Parker Bey (pro se) sent a March 12, 2019 public-records request to the Clerk of the Ohio Court of Claims seeking the Court of Claims records-retention schedule and an exhibit from Court of Claims docket no. 2013-00154.
- The Court of Claims produced only an entry stating the requested exhibit could not be located; relator sued in the Tenth District seeking a writ of mandamus under R.C. 149.43 and statutory forfeiture/damages under R.C. 149.351.
- Respondent (Court of Claims) moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). The magistrate recommended dismissal because the Public Records Act does not govern judicial records for cases commenced on or after July 1, 2009.
- The magistrate concluded that requests for judicial records arising from cases filed on/after July 1, 2009 must proceed under Sup.R. 44–47, not R.C. 149.43, so mandamus under the Public Records Act was unavailable.
- The magistrate also held that any civil-forfeiture claim under R.C. 149.351 must be brought in the proper court of common pleas and that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction over that claim.
- The Tenth District independently reviewed and adopted the magistrate’s decision, overruled relator’s objections (including untimeliness), granted the motion to dismiss, and denied the requested writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper vehicle to obtain judicial records (Sup.R. 44–47 v. R.C. 149.43) | Bey sought mandamus under the Public Records Act to obtain Court of Claims documents. | Court of Claims argued the documents are judicial records from a case and must be sought under Sup.R. 44–47; R.C. 149.43 does not apply to post‑July 1, 2009 judicial records. | Court: Sup.R. 44–47 govern access to case documents in actions commenced on/after July 1, 2009; mandamus under R.C. 149.43 is not available. Complaint dismissed. |
| Venue/jurisdiction for civil forfeiture under R.C. 149.351 | Bey sought $1,000-per-violation forfeiture and other relief under R.C. 149.351 in this action. | Court of Claims argued such forfeiture actions must be brought in the court of common pleas of the county where the alleged violation occurred. | Court: R.C. 149.351(B) requires filing in the appropriate common pleas court; the appellate court lacks jurisdiction over the forfeiture claim; that claim dismissed. |
| Failure to provide a written denial under R.C. 149.43 | Bey emphasized respondent did not provide a written denial as required by the Public Records Act. | Court of Claims contended the Public Records Act is the wrong vehicle for these judicial records. | Court: Because the complaint fails on legal grounds (wrong statutory vehicle), the magistrate was not required to make factual findings about whether a written denial was provided; objection overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Bey v. Byrd, 160 Ohio St.3d 141 (Sup.R. 44–47 govern access to case documents in cases commenced on or after July 1, 2009)
- State ex rel. Parisi v. Dayton Bar Assn. Certified Grievance Commt., 159 Ohio St.3d 211 (Rules of Superintendence are the sole vehicle for obtaining judicial records when applicable)
- State ex rel. Village of Richfield v. Laria, 138 Ohio St.3d 168 (Sup.R. 44–47 adopted July 1, 2009 and govern public access to court records)
- State ex rel. Vindicator Printing Co. v. Wolff, 132 Ohio St.3d 481 (application of Rules of Superintendence to public access disputes post‑2009)
- State ex rel. Drake v. Athens Cty. Bd. of Elections, 39 Ohio St.3d 40 (when dismissing under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), courts make no factual findings beyond legal insufficiency)