Michael Isreal v. Franklin County Commissioners et al.
No. 20AP-51
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
October 28, 2021
2021-Ohio-3824
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Michael Isreal,
Requester-Appellant,
v.
Franklin County Commissioners et al.,
Respondents-Appellees.
D E C I S I O N
Rendered on October 28, 2021
On brief: Michael Isreal, pro se. Argued: Michael Isreal.
On brief: [G. Gary Tyack], Prosecuting Attorney, and Nick A. Soulas, Jr., for appellees. Argued: Thomas Ellis.
APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio
BEATTY BLUNT, J.
{¶ 1} Requester-appellant, Michael Isreal (“appellant“), acting pro se, appeals the judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio overruling appellant‘s objectiоns to the special master‘s report and recommendation and adopting the report and recommendation of the special master granting the motion of respondents-appellees Franklin County Commissioners, Kevin Boyce, Marilyn Brown, and John O‘Grаdy (“appellees“) to dismiss appellant‘s complaint as being moot. Appellant has also filed a motion titled “Motion for the Appeal Court Judges to Consider and Decide” (“Motion to Consider“), which we address below. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Claims.
- Provide the reported malfunctions and people being trapped in elevator (8) in 2018.
- Provide the dates and time the fire department was called for elevator malfunctions of elevator (8) in 2018.
- Provide the dates and times the maintenance employees were called for elevator malfunсtions in elevator (8) in 2018.
- Provide the dates and times maintenance employees opened doors for trapped citizens in 2018.
- Provide the maintenance records for elevator (8) in 2018.
Id. at 4-5; 8.
{¶ 3} Pursuant to
{¶ 4} On October 17, 2019, the special master issued his Report and Recommendation (“R & R“) that the court deny appellant‘s claim for production of records as moot; the court deny the claim that the responsive records were provided untimely; and court costs be assessed against appellant. (R & R at 5.) More specifically, the special master found that all but two pages of documents responsive to appellant‘s initial requests were timely provided; that the two pages produced during the pendency of the litigation were
{¶ 5} On November 19, 2019, with leave of court, appellant filed a document titled “Memorandum Contra Motion To Special Master Jeffery W. Clark Report and Recommendation filed on October 17, 2019,” which the trial court construed to be objections. (Dec. 17, 2019 Decision & Entry at 1-2; Nov. 19, 2019 Memo Contra/Objs.) On November 21, 2019, appellant filed a document titled “Motion Supplement-Put In Order Pro Se Requester Michael Isreal‘s November 19, 2019 Memorandum Contra Motion to Special Master Jeffery W. Clark Report and Recommendation filed on October 17, 2019 To Include The Attached Left-Out Exhibits.”
{¶ 6} Thereafter, on December 17, 2019, the trial court issued its decision and entry overruling the objections, denying appellant‘s motion filed November 21, 2019 and adopting the special master‘s R & R. (Dec. 17, 2019 Decision & Entry.) In overruling the objections, thе court first determined that four of the five requests submitted by appellant to appellees were requests for information rather than specifically identified records that would require production under the Ohio Public Records Act. Id. at 3. The court further found aрpellant‘s attempt to supplement his November 19, 2019 objections with various exhibits via his November 21, 2019 “motion supplement” was, in essence, impermissible. Id. at 5. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of appellees and assessed costs against appellаnt. Id. at 6.
{¶ 7} Appellant now appeals from the trial court‘s judgment. Before we address the merits of the appeal, however, we will address appellant‘s Motion to Consider. In his motion, appellant asks this court to consider and decide four discrete issues in addition to the pending appeal. All four of these issues appear to concern previous litigation in which appellant has been involved in either the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and/or this court. With regard to the first issue, it appears appellant is asking us to consider—or rather, reconsider—whether the trial court‘s entry of dismissal without prejudice that was at issue in Isreal v. G-Core Automotive Corp., 10th Dist. No. 13AP-201, 2013-Ohio-4461, is
{¶ 8} Furthermore, we find thаt the remaining three issues presented by appellant in his motion amount to abstract and/or hypothetical legal questions which would require this court to render advisory opinions. “It is well-settled law that this court will not issue advisory opinions.” Youngstown State Univ. v. State Emp. Relations. Bd., 10th Dist. No. 15AP-755, 2016-Ohio-2649, ¶ 11, citing State ex rel. White v. Koch, 96 Ohio St.3d 395, 2002-Ohio-4848, ¶ 18, citing State ex rel. Baldzicki v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 90 Ohio St.3d 238, 242 (2000); Egan v. Natl. Distillers & Chem. Corp., 25 Ohio St.3d 176 (1986), syllabus. Therefore, we deсline to consider (or reconsider) and decide the issues set forth in appellant‘s motion.
{¶ 9} Turning to the merits of appellant‘s appeal, we begin by noting that appellant elected to proceed pro se both in bringing this action and on appeal. It is well-settled that litigants who choose to proceed pro se “are presumed to have knowledge of the law and legal procedures and are held to the same standard as litigants who are represented by counsel.” Rizzo-Lortz v. Erie Ins. Group., 10th Dist. No. 17AP-623, 2019-Ohio-2133, ¶ 18, citing In re Application of Black Fork Wind Energy, LLC, 138 Ohio St.3d 43, 2013-Ohio-5478, ¶ 22. “A litigant proсeeding pro se can neither expect nor demand special treatment.” Id., citing Suon v. Mong, 10th Dist. No. 17AP-879, 2018-Ohio-4187, ¶ 26. “In civil cases, the same rules, procedures and standards apply to one who appears pro se as apply to those litigants who are represеnted by counsel.” Fields v. Stange, 10th Dist. No. 03AP-48, 2004-Ohio-1134, ¶ 7, citing State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d 352, 2003-Ohio-6448, ¶ 10.
{¶ 10} In the present case, we observe that appellant‘s brief is deficient in that it fails to identify any assignments of error. Pursuant to App.R. 16(A)(3), an appellant‘s brief must contain “[a] statement of the assignments of error presented for review, with referеnce to the place in the record where each error is reflected.” Assignments of error are particularly important because appellate courts determine each appeal “on its merits on the assignments of error set forth in the briefs under App.R. 16.” App.R. 12(A)(1)(b). ” ‘This
{¶ 11} As discussed above, appellant‘s actiоn in the trial court was premised on a dispute concerning a public records request, brought pursuant to
{¶ 12}
In order to provide for an expeditious and economical procedure that attempts to resolve disputes alleging a denial of access to public records in violation оf division (B) of section 149.43 of the Revised Code, except for a court that hears a mandamus action pursuant to that section, the court of claims shall be the sole and exclusive authority in this state that adjudicates or resolves complaints based оn alleged violations of that section. The clerk of the court of claims shall designate one or more current employees or hire one or more individuals to serve as special masters to hear complaints brought under this section. All speсial masters shall have been engaged in the practice of law in this state for at least four years and be in good
standing with the supreme court at the time of designation or hiring. The clerk may assign administrative and clerical work associated with complaints brought under this section to current employees or may hire such additional employees as may be necessary to perform such work.
{¶ 13} At the heart of this case is appellant‘s assertion that, in essence, the documents provided by appellees in response to appellant‘s request on December 28, 2018 were not provided within a reasonable period of time as required by
{¶ 14} Thus, other than the two pages of documents provided during the course of mediation, all of the records appellant requested were provided within thirty business days of the original request. We agree with the finding of the special master, as adopted by the trial court, that “[w]hile 30 business days may stretch the outer limits of the ‘reasonable period of time’ in which to produce copies of reasonably identified records, * * * under the facts and circumstances in this case * * * [appellant] has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that [apрellees] violated the timeliness requirement of
{¶ 15} In short, the trial court rightly agreed with the special master that appellant‘s complaint should be dismissed on the grounds that it was moot. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, appellant was provided the records he requested within a reasonable period of time. Furthermore, he is not entitled to costs in this case. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio overruling the objections of appellant and аdopting the R & R of the special master is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
DORRIAN, P.J., and MENTEL, J., concur.