2015 Ohio 5226
Ohio2015Background
- Relator Craig T. Conley faxed a letter on Sept. 4, 2014 requesting full, legible copies of two court documents from Judge Dixie Park, styled as a public-records request under Sup.R. 45(B).
- Judge Park returned the fax the same day, stating the court does not accept faxed filings without prior approval and treating the transmission as a filing rather than a records request.
- Conley replied that his communication was a public-records request and asserted Park failed to comply with Sup.R. 45(B)(1).
- Conley filed a pro se mandamus action in the Fifth District Court of Appeals on Sept. 10, 2014 seeking a peremptory writ ordering Park to produce the records.
- On Sept. 23 the court of appeals issued a peremptory writ and closed the case before Judge Park had been served with the complaint, answered, or been given the opportunity to explain her refusal.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed whether issuing a peremptory writ without allowing a response was proper and remanded for Judge Park to be allowed to respond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a mandamus action under Sup.R. 45(B) was proper | Conley: Sup.R. 47(B) permits mandamus to enforce Sup.R. 44–47; his request sought access under Sup.R. 45(B) so mandamus is appropriate | Park: (implicit) refusal was justified because the fax was a filing and the court does not accept faxed filings without approval | Held: Conley properly filed for mandamus to enforce Sup.R. 45(B) (mandamus is the correct remedy) |
| Whether the court of appeals could issue a peremptory writ without an answer | Conley: sought peremptory writ immediately to obtain records | Park: entitled to notice and opportunity to respond before a peremptory writ issues | Held: Peremptory writ should not issue in the first instance unless material facts are admitted; court of appeals acted prematurely and must allow Park to respond |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Radel, 57 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1991) (peremptory writ in first instance appropriate only when material facts are admitted)
- State ex rel. Temke v. Outcalt, 49 Ohio St.2d 189 (Ohio 1977) (same principle limiting issuance of peremptory writs)
- State ex rel. Mazzaro v. Ferguson, 49 Ohio St.3d 37 (Ohio 1990) (court generally should not grant peremptory writ before an answer admitting or denying material facts)