State ex rel. Gooden v. Kagel, 138 Ohio St. 3d 343

Gooden, a convicted inmate, sought certified copies of victim-loss statements from his criminal case to challenge restitution ordered in 2006.
He filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against Julie Kagel, Marion County Clerk of Courts, alleging she denied his repeated requests for those statements.
The Third District issued an alternative writ and ordered Kagel to respond; Kagel replied she never possessed the requested victim-loss statements and noted the restitution issue could have been raised on direct appeal.
The court of appeals found Gooden failed to file the inmate-account statement required by R.C. 2969.25 when seeking waiver of filing fees and failed to attach proof of his requests or Kagel’s denials.
The court also found Gooden produced no evidence that the victim-loss statements were ever filed or in Kagel’s custody, concluding his assertions of their existence were unsubstantiated.
The court of appeals dismissed the mandamus petition; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed for the same reasons.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gooden properly complied with R.C. 2969.25 when seeking fee waiver	Gooden sought waiver and indigence status but did not attach inmate-account statement; implied he met requirements	Kagel (and record) showed Gooden failed to attach the required inmate-account statement	Court held Gooden failed to satisfy R.C. 2969.25(C), a fatal defect to his petition
Whether Kagel had a duty to produce the victim-loss statements	Gooden asserted the statements existed, were public records, and Kagel refused to provide them	Kagel denied possessing the statements and Gooden produced no clear-and-convincing evidence that they existed or were in her custody	Court held Gooden failed to prove the records existed or were under Kagel’s control; thus no mandamus relief

State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288 (recognizing mandamus as proper remedy under Ohio Public Records Act)
State ex rel. Data Trace Information Servs., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 131 Ohio St.3d 255 (relators in public-records mandamus need not show lack of adequate remedy at law)
State ex rel. Am. Civ. Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 128 Ohio St.3d 256 (same principle regarding public-records mandamus procedure)
State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 133 Ohio St.3d 139 (relator must prove by clear and convincing evidence that requested records exist and are within respondent’s control)