State ex rel. Griffin v. SzokeState ex rel. Griffin v. Szoke
(No. 2022-1523—Submitted May 16, 2023—Decided September 6, 2023.)
IN MANDAMUS.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Relator, Mark Griffin, submitted a public-records request to respondent, Allan Szoke, a warden’s assistant employed by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. When Szoke failed to provide the records, Griffin brought this action, requesting a writ of mandamus ordering Szoke to produce them. Because Szoke has since provided Griffin with the requested records, we deny as moot Griffin’s request for a writ of mandamus. We also deny Griffin’s request for statutory damages.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
{¶ 2} Griffin is an inmate at the Toledo Correctional Institution (“TCI”). Szoke works at the Ross Correctional Institution (“RCI”), where his duties include responding to public-records requests from inmates.
{¶ 3} On November 13, 2022, Griffin sent an electronic kite to RCI. A kite is a type of written correspondence between an inmate and prison staff. See State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 161 Ohio St.3d 130, 2020-Ohio-3686, 161 N.E.3d 575, ¶ 16. In his kite, Griffin made a public-records request for “a copy of the warden[’]s pay roll, and time sheet, for the month of October 2022.” Although
{¶ 4} On November 19, Griffin sent a kite to TCI, stating, “[T]hey told me to go through my institution… Why. Can you give me a response….. .” Derek Burkhart, a public-information officer at TCI, responded on November 22 by kite. He stated: “I reviewed and I would not have access to get that information requested. That would come from them however, they could forward to me to deliver to you.” The record contains no further communication regarding the request.
{¶ 5} On December 12, Griffin filed this action in this court, seeking a writ of mandamus compelling production of the records and an award of statutory damages. We granted an alternative writ and ordered the submission of evidence and briefs. 169 Ohio St.3d 1440, 2023-Ohio-482, 203 N.E.3d 727. As evidence, Szoke submitted an affidavit in which he avers that on January 19, 2023, he mailed the requested records to Griffin. Szoke also included the produced records as evidence. In his reply brief, Griffin states that he did not actually receive the records until March 21 but agrees that he has now received them.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. The request for a writ is moot
{¶ 6} Because the parties agree that the requested records have now been produced, we deny the request for a writ of mandamus as moot. See State ex rel. Martin v. Greene, 156 Ohio St.3d 482, 2019-Ohio-1827, 129 N.E.3d 419, ¶ 7 (“In general, a public-records mandamus case becomes moot when the public office provides the requested records”).
{¶ 7} The production of the records does not moot Griffin’s request for statutory damages. See id. at ¶ 8; see also State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 156 Ohio St.3d 13, 2018-Ohio-5108, 123 N.E.3d 887, ¶ 20-22. Griffin is entitled to statutory damages if (1) he transmitted his request by hand delivery, electronic submission, or certified mail, (2) his request was transmitted to the public office or person responsible for the public records, (3) the request fairly described the public records being sought, and (4) the public office or person responsible for public records failed to fulfill their duties under
{¶ 8} Here, Griffin transmitted his request by electronic kite, which constitutes electronic submission for purposes of
{¶ 9} Griffin has not shown, however, that Szoke failed to fulfill his duties under the Public Records Act,
{¶ 10} Based on the evidence in the record, Griffin has not clearly and convincingly shown that Szoke denied Griffin’s public-records request or otherwise failed to fulfill his duties under the Public Records Act. We thus deny Griffin’s request for statutory damages.
C. Griffin’s motion to place this court on notice is moot
{¶ 11} Finally, in January 2023, Griffin filed a “motion to place the court on notice of the actual public records requested documents, ‘employee records,’ ” in which he reidentifies the documents he was requesting. We deny the motion as moot.
III. CONCLUSION
{¶ 12} Because Szoke has now produced the records at issue, Griffin’s request for a writ of mandamus is moot. In addition, because Griffin has not shown by clear and convincingly evidence that Szoke failed to fulfill his duties under the Public Records Act, Griffin is not entitled to statutory damages. We therefore deny the request for a writ as moot and deny the request for statutory damages. We also deny Griffin’s motion to place this court on notice as moot.
Writ denied.
FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, BRUNNER, and DETERS, JJ., concur.
KENNEDY, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by STEWART, J.
KENNEDY, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
{¶ 13} I concur in the majority’s decision to deny relator Mark Griffin’s request for a writ of mandamus as moot because the requested public records have been produced. I also concur in the majority’s decision to deny as moot Griffin’s
{¶ 14} A person who has requested public records is entitled to recover statutory damages if the person responsible for the public records fails to comply with an obligation set forth in
{¶ 15} The majority denies Griffin’s request for statutory damages because it does not believe that he showed, by clear and convincing evidence, that the records custodian “failed to fulfill his duties under the Public Records Act,
{¶ 16} On November 13, 2022, Griffin electronically submitted his public-records request. Respondent, Allan Szoke, the person responsible for responding to inmates’ public-records requests at the Ross Correctional Institution, received the request. Griffin’s request fairly described the public records he was seeking; it stated that pursuant to the Public Records Act, he was forwarding his request to the Ross Correctional Institution and that he was seeking “a copy of the wardens [sic] pay roll, and time sheet, for the month of October 2022.”
{¶ 17} None of the evidence presented indicates that Szoke was uncertain about what Griffin was requesting. It is true that Griffin did not include the warden’s name in his request, but Szoke’s brief refers to the records requested as records of the warden of the Ross Correctional Institution. If Szoke had found
{¶ 18} As additional grounds for its decision to deny Griffin statutory damages, the majority cites the fact that he “did not follow up with either Szoke or [Derek Burkhart, a public-information officer at the Toledo Correctional Institution] to request that the records be delivered to Burkhart or to ask for further clarification regarding their responses” before filing his mandamus action. Majority opinion at ¶ 9. But the statute does not require any further action by the public-records requester. The General Assembly has required only that the person seeking a public record make a request; the burden is then on the public-records custodian to respond appropriately. After Szoke failed to respond appropriately, Griffin took the next action afforded him under the statutory scheme.
{¶ 19} Under
{¶ 20} Griffin filed this mandamus action on December 12, 2022, and Szoke was served with the complaint on December 16, 2022, but Szoke did not mail the requested records to Griffin until January 19, 2023. Therefore, I would find by clear and convincing evidence that Szoke failed to fulfill his duties under
{¶ 21} For these reasons, I would grant Griffin’s request for statutory damages in the sum of $1,000. Because the majority does not, I dissent from that portion of its judgment. Therefore, I concur in part and dissent in part.
STEWART, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.
Mark Griffin, pro se.
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and John H. Bates, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.