2021 Ohio 4432
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Relator Kimani E. Ware, an incarcerated pro se litigant, filed a mandamus complaint seeking records from the Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts: judges’ oaths, filings from two 2008 cases, an employee personnel file, and the clerk’s public-records policy.
- Ware alleged the clerk’s office responded only to say no filing fee was required and otherwise failed to produce the records despite follow-up letters; he filed an amended complaint.
- Respondents moved for summary judgment, asserting procedural defects under R.C. 2969.25 and that the records had been produced (mootness). Ware acknowledged production but sought statutory damages.
- The court analyzed which law governed the requests: Ohio Rules of Superintendence apply to court administrative records; the Public Records Act governs case records initiated before July 1, 2009.
- The court found Ware’s affidavit of prior civil actions did not strictly comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) because it failed to list the full names of all parties, a mandatory requirement for incarcerated filers.
- Result: respondents’ motion for summary judgment granted, Ware’s motion denied, writ of mandamus denied, costs assessed to relator.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governing law for records requests | Ware: Public Records Act governs access to requested records | Respondents: Ohio Rules of Superintendence govern court records | Court: Mixed — Sup.R. governs administrative records; R.C. 149.43 governs pre-2009 case records |
| Sufficiency of R.C. 2969.25 affidavit | Ware: filed affidavit (attached to original complaint) | Respondents: affidavit absent from amended complaint and/or noncompliant | Court: affidavit noncompliant — failed to list full party names; strict compliance required |
| Mootness / whether records still must be produced | Ware: seeks statutory damages despite production | Respondents: production moots request for records | Court: production eliminates obligation to produce, but procedural defect dispositive of remedy claim |
| Entitlement to statutory damages | Ware: statutory damages available despite procedural issues | Respondents: not entitled due to compliance/mootness issues | Court: denied — relief barred by procedural noncompliance and lack of entitlement shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Ware v. Giavasis, 163 Ohio St.3d 359, 2020-Ohio-5453, 170 N.E.3d 788 (Ohio 2020) (mandamus is proper to enforce public-records and Sup.R.-based access rules)
- State ex rel. Bey v. Byrd, 160 Ohio St.3d 141, 2020-Ohio-2766, 154 N.E.3d 57 (Ohio 2020) (Sup.R. governs court administrative records; pre-2009 case records governed by Public Records Act)
- State ex rel. Neguse v. McIntosh, 161 Ohio St.3d 125, 2020-Ohio-3533, 161 N.E.3d 571 (Ohio 2020) (strict compliance with R.C. 2969.25 is required)
- State ex rel. Bates v. Eppinger, 147 Ohio St.3d 355, 2016-Ohio-7452, 65 N.E.3d 746 (Ohio 2016) (failure to file the R.C. 2969.25 affidavit warrants dismissal)
- State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, 140 Ohio St.3d 297, 2014-Ohio-3735, 17 N.E.3d 581 (Ohio 2014) (R.C. 2969.25 requirements are mandatory)
- State ex rel. Ware v. Walsh, 159 Ohio St.3d 120, 2020-Ohio-769, 148 N.E.3d 554 (Ohio 2020) (affirming dismissal where Ware failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25)
- State ex rel. Everhart v. McIntosh, 115 Ohio St.3d 195, 2007-Ohio-4798, 874 N.E.2d 516 (Ohio 2007) (courts may take judicial notice of publicly available court dockets)