2022 Ohio 354
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Relator Robert Hill, an inmate at Southeastern Correctional Institution, sought a writ of mandamus ordering ODRC (and employees Campbell, Miller, Pierce) to produce records in response to three public-records requests related to his ineligibility for Transitional Control.
- Hill's requests: (1) June 15 kite — paper copies of electronic kites he sent to PO Campbell and dispositions; (2) June 19 paper kite — all electronic communications he submitted to Campbell in June 2020 and dispositions; (3) June 23 public-records request — any judgment entries, sentencing entries, and/or documents regarding any sex or arson convictions (juvenile or adult).
- OAPA denied Hill Transitional Control, citing sex- and arson-related convictions; screening forms and prior determinations referenced such convictions and Campbell told Hill resource material indicated a 2907 offense.
- The magistrate recommended denying mandamus, concluding the requested records were "records of inmates" exempt under R.C. 5120.21(F) (relying on Hogan Lovells) or did not exist.
- The appellate majority adopted the magistrate's factual findings but rejected its legal conclusions: it declined to extend Hogan Lovells to bar Hill from obtaining the material on which his ineligibility was based and refused to accept ODRC's blanket averment of nonexistence without further inquiry.
- The court granted a limited writ remanding to ODRC to research the "resource material" Campbell relied on; if such material exists, Hill is entitled to it. Judge Luper Schuster dissented, arguing the records are exempt and/or do not exist.
Issues
| Issue | Hill's Argument | ODRC/Respondents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requested records are public or exempt as "records of inmates" under R.C. 5120.21(F) | The records (judgments, documents, kites, resource material) relate to Hill himself and are needed to challenge OAPA's denial; thus they should be producible | Hogan Lovells and R.C. 5120.21(F) render "records of inmates" exempt from public-records disclosure, so the requests should be denied | Court declined to extend Hogan Lovells to bar Hill from obtaining the resource material underlying his ineligibility; did not adopt magistrate's blanket exemption for these requests |
| Whether ODRC must produce printouts/copies of Hill's electronic kites and dispositions | Hill says he requested those kites and needs them to verify what Campbell considered and to contest the denial | ODRC maintained that inmates' records are nonpublic and some respondents said no record of the June 19 paper kite exists or that central office directed not to print kites | Court adopted factual findings about the requests but did not finally order production of kites; emphasized Hill's right to the underlying resource material and remanded for ODRC to research that material |
| Whether ODRC may prevail based on averment that judgment/sentencing entries or documents do not exist | Hill contends ODRC must search and disclose any documents used in screening (including "resource material") | Pierce averred ODRC does not maintain sentencing entries for non-ODRC incarcerations and her search found no such records | Court rejected accepting nonexistence averment without further exploration as to the specific "resource material" referenced by Campbell and ordered ODRC to research it |
| Remedy when resource material used to determine Transitional Control ineligibility is not produced | Hill seeks mandamus to obtain the documents used to deem him ineligible | ODRC asserts records are exempt or not maintained; if none exist, no production possible | Court granted a limited writ: remand to ODRC to locate/research the "resource material" used in Campbell's determination and provide it if it exists; if no such material exists, ODRC must proceed to verify/justify the ineligibility per applicable precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Keith v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 141 Ohio St.3d 375 (2014) (public-body reliance on incorrect records requires verification; board must consider accurate reports)
- State ex rel. Lanham v. Smith, 112 Ohio St.3d 527 (2007) (mandamus will not issue where uncontroverted evidence shows requested documents do not exist)
- State ex rel. ACLU of Ohio v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 128 Ohio St.3d 256 (2011) (public-records mandamus relators need not show lack of adequate remedy at law)
- State ex rel. Physicians Comm. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288 (2006) (standard for compelling production of public records)
- State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967) (elements required for mandamus: clear right, clear duty, lack of adequate remedy)