2020 Ohio 3686
Ohio2020Background:
- Relator Jerone McDougald, then an inmate at Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF), submitted two public-records requests by prison "kites": Dec. 5, 2018 (DAS general schedule) and Feb. 3, 2019 (use-of-force report by Brian Barney).
- Respondent Larry Greene, SOCF administrative assistant responsible for records, initially said the Barney report did not exist; McDougald sued in mandamus on June 28, 2019 alleging denial of both requests.
- After suit, Greene produced the DAS schedule (July 22, 2019) and later located and produced the Barney report (Oct. 31, 2019); both productions were acknowledged by McDougald.
- McDougald sought statutory damages and costs, and moved to amend to allege his kites were hand-delivered to Greene during rounds; the court ordered briefing on whether a kite constitutes "hand delivery."
- The majority denied the writ as moot, held a kite is not hand delivery for R.C. 149.43(C)(2) purposes, denied statutory damages and court costs, and denied leave to amend; Justice Kennedy dissented (joined by Justice Stewart), arguing a kite should qualify as hand delivery.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of mandamus after production of records | McDougald sought records; production may still allow damages/costs | Greene produced records and submitted signed receipts showing delivery | Record production moots mandamus claims; writ denied as moot |
| Whether a prison "kite" is "hand delivery" under R.C. 149.43(C)(2) (statutory-damages trigger) | Kite is the DRC-authorized two-way communication and constitutes hand delivery to the public office | Kite system functions like regular mail (sealed drop-box, routing, multiple handlers) and thus is not hand delivery | Kite does not qualify as hand delivery for statutory-damages eligibility |
| Sufficiency of proof / amendment to plead to show hand delivery | McDougald sought leave to amend to allege hand delivery during inmate-communication rounds | Greene offered affidavit denying he entered McDougald’s block on those dates; no affidavit from McDougald | Motion to amend denied as futile; relator failed to prove qualifying delivery by clear and convincing evidence |
| Entitlement to statutory damages and court costs; bad-faith inquiry | McDougald argued Greene unreasonably delayed and acted in bad faith | Greene showed he reasonably believed report did not exist and produced it when found; no evidence of dishonesty or ulterior motive | Statutory damages and court costs denied; no bad-faith finding |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 894 N.E.2d 686 (Ohio 2008) (production of requested records in mandamus action renders claim moot)
- State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 123 N.E.3d 887 (Ohio 2018) (statutory damages may be warranted even when mandamus claims are moot due to delay in production)
- State ex rel. Martin v. Greene, 129 N.E.3d 419 (Ohio 2019) (requester bears burden to prove qualifying delivery by clear and convincing evidence)
- State ex rel. Penland v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 139 N.E.3d 862 (Ohio 2019) (denying statutory damages where relator failed to show delivery by authorized methods)
- State ex rel. Carr v. London Corr. Inst., 41 N.E.3d 1203 (Ohio 2015) (hand delivery may be satisfied by giving request to a prison official who will deliver it to the records custodian)
- State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 843 N.E.2d 174 (Ohio 2006) (mandamus is appropriate remedy to compel compliance with R.C. 149.43)