2021 Ohio 70
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Vincent El Alan Parker Bey, an inmate, filed two mandamus actions seeking public records under R.C. 149.43 from the Ohio Bureau of Sentence Computation (BOSC) and the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (OAPA).
- BOSC received Parker's request in November 2018 and, after internal processing, mailed the records by certified mail in February 2019; Parker acknowledged receipt but complained the response was not "prompt."
- Parker sought statutory damages and costs for the alleged delayed response; OAPA moved to dismiss the separate petition brought against it.
- Both respondents argued Parker failed to strictly comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) (the inmate affidavit-of-prior-actions requirement) when commencing his actions.
- The magistrate recommended dismissal for noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(A); the court adopted the magistrate’s factual findings and overruled Parker’s objections, dismissing both actions without reaching the merits.
- The court clarified that the BOSC matter was moot insofar as the records had been provided, but both cases were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to Parker’s defective affidavits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a public-records mandamus is moot after the records are produced | Parker argued he still could recover statutory damages and costs for an unreasonable delay | Respondents noted that producing the records moots the request and urged dismissal | Court: Production rendered the request moot as to forcing disclosure, but dismissal was based on Parker's jurisdictional R.C. 2969.25(A) defect rather than merits |
| Whether Parker strictly complied with R.C. 2969.25(A) when filing as an inmate | Parker asserted his affidavits satisfied the statute (listed prior filings) | Respondents argued affidavits lacked required details (brief description of nature, opposing parties, outcomes) and thus failed strict compliance | Court: Parker failed to strictly comply; dismissals required and court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits |
| Whether a belated or amended affidavit cures noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) | Parker later filed a modified affidavit and argued compliance | Respondents maintained that belated compliance does not cure the defect and is jurisdictionally insufficient | Court: Belated or insufficient affidavits do not cure noncompliance; dismissal stands |
| Whether BOSC’s 80-day delay entitled Parker to statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C) | Parker sought statutory damages for delayed production | BOSC argued compliance occurred once documents were mailed and additionally relied on Parker’s R.C. 2969.25(A) failure | Court: Did not reach merits on damages due to jurisdictional dismissal; could not award damages because of defective affidavit |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28 (Ohio 1983) (sets three-element mandamus test)
- State ex rel. Physicians Comm. for Responsible Medicine v. Bd. of Trustees of Ohio State Univ., 108 Ohio St.3d 288 (Ohio 2006) (mandamus is proper remedy for public-records requests)
- State ex rel. Kimbro v. Glavas, 97 Ohio St.3d 197 (Ohio 2002) (affidavit listing "appeal of a civil petition" was insufficient under R.C. 2969.25(A))
- State ex rel. Young v. Clipper, 142 Ohio St.3d 318 (Ohio 2015) (belated filing of the required affidavit does not cure noncompliance)
- State ex rel. Ridenour v. Brunsman, 117 Ohio St.3d 260 (Ohio 2008) (failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 requires dismissal)
- State ex rel. Martin v. Greene, 156 Ohio St.3d 482 (Ohio 2019) (public-records mandamus is generally moot when records are produced)
- State ex rel. Crim v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 87 Ohio St.3d 38 (Ohio 1999) (mandamus will not lie to compel an act already performed)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton Cty., 75 Ohio St.3d 374 (Ohio 1996) (R.C. 149.43 must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure)