2022 Ohio 4778
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Relator Mark R. Russell is an incarcerated plaintiff who sued the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) in the Court of Claims alleging excessive force; that case was settled after negotiations.
- In July 2021 Russell sent letters to Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost requesting the identity of the ODRC employee(s) who participated in settlement discussions.
- The OAG responded in August 2021 that the requested information was privileged.
- Russell filed an original mandamus petition (Nov. 18, 2021) seeking an order compelling the Attorney General to disclose the identity of the ODRC negotiator(s).
- The Attorney General moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); the magistrate recommended dismissal and the court, after independent review, granted the motion and dismissed the action.
- The court held Russell failed to show a clear legal right or any legal duty on the OAG to disclose the names, and his complaint relied on unsupported legal conclusions insufficient to survive a 12(B)(6) dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to identity of ODRC settlement negotiator(s) | Russell: he has a right to know the name(s) of the person(s) who made settlement decisions for ODRC | Yost: the information is privileged and there is no duty to disclose the identity | Court: Russell has no clear legal right and OAG has no duty to disclose; mandamus denied |
| Sufficiency of complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for mandamus | Russell alleged facts and asserted entitlement to relief | Yost: complaint contains only unsupported legal conclusions and cites no legal authority | Court: complaint fails to state a claim; unsupported conclusions cannot survive dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Rhodes, 54 Ohio St.2d 41 (Ohio 1978) (describes mandamus as a writ to compel performance of a legal duty)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (defines clear-and-convincing standard cited for evidentiary burden)
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (Ohio 1975) (standard that complaint cannot be dismissed unless no set of facts would entitle plaintiff to relief)
- Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28 (Ohio 1983) (sets out three-part test for mandamus: clear right, clear duty, no adequate remedy)
- Husted v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 288 (Ohio 2009) (discusses clear-and-convincing evidence requirement for extraordinary relief)
- Colvin v. Brunner, 120 Ohio St.3d 110 (Ohio 2008) (relator must support claims with law and evidence; mere assertions insufficient)
- Manley v. Walsh, 142 Ohio St.3d 384 (Ohio 2014) (the right to mandamus relief must be clear)