2020 Ohio 34
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Relator Daveion Perry, an incarcerated individual, filed a mandamus action after claiming he sent a certified-mail public-records request to Cuyahoga County Clerk Nailah K. Byrd on August 7, 2019.
- Perry sought six items: (1) clerk records-retention schedule, (2) clerk public-records policy, (3) an unspecified grand-jury subpoena from his criminal case, (4) latent-fingerprint forensic evidence, (5) gunshot-residue kits used on him, and (6) a Miranda-waiver form from his police interrogation.
- USPS tracking for the certified mailing showed status “not available”; the Clerk’s office averred it had no record of receiving Perry’s request.
- The Clerk attached the retention schedule and public-records policy to its summary-judgment filings and produced those records; Perry did not seek relief under the Ohio Rules of Superintendence for court-investigation records.
- The court converted a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, granted the Clerk’s motion in part, denied statutory damages to Perry, found the action moot as to the first two requests, and denied the Clerk’s request to label Perry a vexatious litigator.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio Public Records Act (PRA) governs requests for records relating to criminal investigation/prosecution | Perry: PRA applies and entitles him to records and statutory damages | Clerk: Records are court records governed by the Rules of Superintendence, not the PRA | Court: PRA does not apply to those court-related records; must proceed under Rules of Superintendence |
| Whether an incarcerated requester can obtain investigation/prosecution records without judicial leave | Perry: did not obtain judge’s leave but argued PRA should control | Clerk: R.C. 149.43(B)(8) requires judge’s leave for inmate requests for such records | Court: Even if PRA applied, Perry did not show compliance with judge-leave requirement, so mandamus inappropriate |
| Whether Perry proved delivery of his certified-mail request and is entitled to statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2) | Perry: he mailed the request by certified mail and is therefore entitled to statutory damages for noncompliance | Clerk: Office never received the request; no breach occurred and statutory damages require verifiable delivery and a showing of breach | Court: Perry failed to prove clerk received the request by clear and convincing evidence; statutory damages denied |
| Whether the retention schedule and public-records policy must be released / whether relief is moot after production | Perry: requested those clerk-office policies and sought production | Clerk: produced the documents and attached them to its motion | Court: Those two documents are public and were provided; claims as to them are moot |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Rogers v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 155 Ohio St.3d 545 (Ohio Supreme Court) (mandamus is appropriate to enforce rights under the PRA)
- Smith v. McBride, 130 Ohio St.3d 51 (Ohio Supreme Court) (summary-judgment standard and appellate review principles)
- State ex rel. Harris v. Pureval, 155 Ohio St.3d 343 (Ohio Supreme Court) (Rules of Superintendence govern access to court records commenced after July 1, 2009)
- Cleveland Constr., Inc. v. Villanueva, 186 Ohio App.3d 258 (Ohio Ct. App.) (Rules of Superintendence do not authorize statutory damages)
- State ex rel. Schroeder v. Cleveland, 150 Ohio St.3d 135 (Ohio Supreme Court) (relators must prove entitlement to mandamus by clear and convincing evidence)
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (Ohio Supreme Court) (same standard for mandamus burden of proof)
- State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 106 Ohio St.3d 113 (Ohio Supreme Court) (mootness principles where records have been provided)