State ex rel. Hill v. Adult Parole Officer CampbellState ex rel. Hill v. Adult Parole Officer Campbell
On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Mark W. Altier, for respondents.
IN MANDAMUS
DORRIAN, J.
{¶ 1} Relator, Robert Hill, an inmate at Southeastern Correctional Institution (“SCI“), commenced this original action requesting this court issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondents Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC“), Adult Parole Officer Tammie Campbell, Institutional Inspector Stanley Miller, and Staff Counsel Sarah Pierce, to comply with his request for records made pursuant to
{¶ 2} Pursuant to
{¶ 3} Hill did not file objections to the magistrate‘s decision.
{¶ 4} We find there is a defect evident on the face of the magistrate‘s decision and only adopt the magistrate‘s findings of fact, and not the conclusions of law. First, we find a defect in the magistrate‘s application of the interpretation of “records of inmates” from State ex rel. Hogan Lovells U.S., L.L.P. v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2021-Ohio-1762, to this case. Second, we find a defect in the magistrate‘s acceptance of ODRC averment that the requested records, in particular, “judgment entries, sentencing entries, and/or documents” and resource material showing he has prior convictions for sex or arson offenses, do not exist.
{¶ 5} As the magistrate noted, Hill made three separate public records requests: (1) a June 15, 2020 request, made by prison kite, for paper copies of electronic kites he sent to Campbell and her disposition of those kites, (2) a June 19, 2020 request, made by paper kite, for all electronic communications Hill submitted to Campbell in June 2020 and the dispositions of those communications, and (3) a June 23, 2020 request for any judgment entries, sentencing entries, and/or documents regarding any sex offenses of which Hill had been convicted as either a juvenile or an adult. The magistrate concluded Hill was not entitled to the records he seeks because they were either “records of inmates” exempt from public records requests pursuant to
{¶ 6} Regarding the interpretation of “records of inmates,”1 contrary to the magistrate‘s conclusion, we do not extend the holding in Hogan Lovells at ¶ 36 to the circumstances of this case. Therefore, we do not adopt the magistrate‘s decision to the extent it concluded the records requested by Hill were considered “records of inmates” exempt from public records pursuant to
{¶ 8} In Hogan Lovells,2 the Supreme Court of Ohio held that “[b]ecause the definitions of ‘records’ and ‘inmates’ are not in question, the meaning of ‘records of inmates’ turns on ‘of,’ a word of many uses. * * * Here, ‘of’ simply means ‘relating to,’ ‘with reference to,’ or ‘about.’ * * * So in looking at
{¶ 9} We distinguish the facts in Hogan Lovells from the facts in this case. In Hogan Lovells, Hogan Lovells, a law firm, sought records of the lethal injection of a particular inmate. Here, the records which Hill seeks: (1) relate to himself,3 and (2) are the basis of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority‘s (“OAPA“) denial of his eligibility for Transitional Control. Specifically, Hill seeks “judgment entries, sentencing entries, and/or documents” regarding any sex or arson offenses of which Hill has been convicted as either a juvenile or
{¶ 10} Included in the stipulated record is a Notice of Transitional Control Ineligibility dated May 21, 2020. This form is initialed by Campbell. On this form is a statement “[p]lease remove the offender from the Transitional Control screening list for the following reason(s).” An “x” is marked in the box next to a typed statement which states “[s]erving a sentence for an offense specified in Chapter 2907 O.R.C. or has a prior conviction for an offense specified in Chapter 2907 of the O.R.C. Includes Conspiracy (ORC 2923.01), Attempt (ORC 2923.02), or Complicity (ORC 2923.03) to commit these offenses. / Excludes Solicitation 2907.24, Prostitution 2907.25.” (Relator‘s Stip. of Evid., Ex. 1.) An “x” is also marked in the box next to a typed statement which states “[s]erving a sentence of previously convicted of Aggravated Arson (ORC 2902.02) or Arson (ORC 2909.03) / Includes Conspiracy (ORC 2923.01), Attempt (ORC 2923.02), or Complicity (ORC 2923.03) to commit these offenses.” (Relator‘s Stip. of Evid., Ex. 1.) Also included in the stipulated record is a Notice of Transitional Control Ineligibility dated March 26, 2008. On this form is a statement “[p]lease remove the offender from the call sheets and works sheets for the following reason(s).” An “x” is marked in the box next to a typed statement which states “[s]erving a sentence for an offense specified in Chapter 2907 O.R.C. or has a prior conviction for an offense specified in Chapter 2907 of the O.R.C.” A handwritten note to the side of the typed statement states “6/20/86 – GSI / 10/8/87 – Arson = Juvenile.” (Resp.‘s Stip. of Evid., Pierce Aff., Att. A.)
{¶ 11} Hill attempted to determine the reason for the ineligibility determination with kites and inquiries back and forth with Campbell in June 2020. He avers that he requested the entries and/or documents he seeks via kite on June 19, 2020, but Campbell denies ever receiving such a kite. Then, upon Campbell‘s instruction, Hill reached out to the inspector of institutional services at SCI, to no avail.
{¶ 12} Hill also tried to work with SCI Staff Counsel Sarah Pierce when she responded to his public records request via July 5, 2020 letter and asked for additional information. Hill responded via July 13, 2020 letter:
Thank you for your correspondence dated July 6, 2020 concerning my public information request on June 23, 2020. In your response you state that “If you would like to provide more clarity about the exact records you are looking for, I am happy to continue to process your request with that additional information.” I‘m sorry but I don‘t think I can be any clearer as to my request. My request for public information was specific. Again that request was for:
“Any judgment enttries, sentencing entries, and/or documents regarding any sex offense I (Robert Hill #A614-862) have been convicted of whether as a juvenile or adult.”
These request are made for reason that on May 21, 2020 South-eastern Correctional Institution Adult Parole Officer Ms. Campbell denied me Transitional Control pursuant to Ohio Administrative Code 5120-12-01 for reasons that I have been convicted of a sex and arson charges. I am completely aware that I have never been charged or convicted of those offenses as a adult or juvenile, thus she has made a mistake in her screening procedure. I informed her that she had made a mistake, however, her response was that her decision is final and there is no appeal.
(Sic passim.) (Rel.‘s Stip. of Evid., Ex. 5.)
{¶ 13} It is clear Hill is simply trying to obtain the entry or document upon which the OAPA has denied him eligibility for Transitional Control. The OAPA should provide him with this information, if not via his kite request, then via this public records request.
{¶ 14} Regarding whether the records exist, we do not accept, without further exploration or explanation, ODRC‘s averment that the judgment entries, sentencing entries and/or documents do not exist. Therefore, we do not adopt the magistrate‘s decision to the extent it concluded the records do not exist.
{¶ 15} ODRC counsel Pierce avers in her affidavit that “no such records exist [and] that ODRC maintains sentencing and related entries for which an individual was incarcerated with ODRC and does not maintain those records for non-ODRC incarcerations as an adult or juvenile.” (Pierce Aff. at 2.) Pierce‘s focus is on judgment or sentencing entries. However, Hill avers in his complaint that in response to his June 11, 2020 inquiry with Campbell regarding her determination that he was ineligible for Transitional Control, Campbell responded by stating: “Your case has been reviewed and resource material
{¶ 16}
{¶ 17} We grant a limited writ of mandamus to remand for ODRC to research the “resource material” upon which Campbell based her ineligibility determination. If such
IV. Disposition
{¶ 18} Pursuant to
Limited writ of mandamus granted.
JAMISON, J., concurs.
LUPER SCHUSTER, P.J., dissents.
LUPER SCHUSTER, P.J., dissenting.
{¶ 19} Because I would find Hill is not entitled to the requested writ of mandamus for any of his three public records requests, I respectfully dissent.
{¶ 20} As to the June 15, 2020 request, I would find that, pursuant to
{¶ 21} As to the June 19, 2020 request, I would note that Campbell did not assert that the requested documents did not exist; rather, she maintained that Hill did not actually make the request because she had no record of his June 19, 2020 paper kite. Moreover, even if Hill properly made his request on June 19, 2020, I would find his request for a writ of mandamus related to his June 19, 2020 kite fails for the same reasons as his June 15, 2020 request. Specifically, the June 19, 2020 request sought all electronic communications Hill had submitted to Campbell in June 2020 and her dispositions therefrom. Because this request sought “records of inmates” as that phrase is used in
{¶ 22} Lastly, as to Hill‘s June 23, 2020 request seeking any judgment entries, sentencing entries, and/or documents regarding any convictions he has had, as either a juvenile or an adult, of any sex offense, I do not agree with the majority‘s position that we cannot accept Pierce‘s statement in her affidavit that ODRC does not maintain sentencing entries for non-ODRC incarcerations and that her independent search revealed no such documents. Hill did not file any objections to the magistrate‘s factual findings. Thus, I would conclude ODRC has no clear legal duty to comply with the request for these documents as the uncontroverted evidence here demonstrates the documents do not exist within the control of ODRC. State ex rel. Lanham v. Smith, 112 Ohio St.3d 527, 2007-Ohio-609, ¶ 15. Additionally, I would note that Pierce averred that, in response to Hill‘s mandamus action, she conducted another search of records related to Hill‘s prior requests for transitional control and attached to her affidavit a copy of a prior denial, completed by Hill‘s parole officer, indicating Hill had juvenile convictions that rendered him ineligible for
{¶ 23} For these reasons, I would find the magistrate correctly determined Hill is not entitled to the requested writ of mandamus for any of his three public records requests, though I would reach that conclusion for different reasons than the magistrate. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
State ex rel. Robert Hill, Relator, v. Adult Parole Officer T. Campbell et al., Respondents.
No. 20AP-510
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
MAGISTRATE‘S DECISION
Rendered on August 24, 2021
Robert Hill, pro se.
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Mark W. Altier, for respondents.
IN MANDAMUS
{¶ 24} Relator, Robert Hill, has filed this original action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering respondents, Adult Parole Officer Tammie Campbell (individually “Campbell“), Institutional Inspector Stanley Miller (individually “Miller“), and Staff Counsel Sarah Pierce (individually “Pierce“), to comply with his request for records made pursuant to
Findings of Fact:
{¶ 25} 1. Relator is a prisoner incarcerated at Southeastern Correctional Institution (“SCI“).
{¶ 26} 2. Campbell is an officer for the Ohio Adult Parole Authority, which operates under the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC“).
{¶ 27} 3. Miller is the Inspector of Institutional Services at SCI.
{¶ 28} 4. Pierce is a staff counsel for ODRC.
{¶ 29} 5. Relator asserts in his petition for writ of mandamus the following: (1) on June 1, 2020, he noticed on a prison computer system that his status went from being eligible for transitional control to ineligible; (2) on June 1, 2020, he sent Campbell an electronic “kite” (a method of communications used in the correctional institution) requesting information as to why his status was changed, explaining why he was eligible for transitional control, and claiming he did not commit any of the crimes in
{¶ 30} 6. On June 15, 2020, relator sent a prison kite to Campbell, requesting that Campbell provide him with paper copies of electronic kites he sent to Campbell and all of her dispositions of these kites. On June 16, 2020, Campbell responded via the kite system and told relator to direct his request to the institutional investigator.
{¶ 31} 7. Relator contends that he directed the request to the institutional investigator on June 16, 2020, and the investigator responded that investigators do not handle making copies of electronic kites, and ODRC is not obligated to provide copies of kites filed electronically.
{¶ 32} 8. Relator contends that, on June 19, 2020, he submitted a paper kite to Campbell, which contained a public records request requesting all electronic communications submitted to her by relator in June 2020 and all dispositions therefrom. Campbell did not respond.
{¶ 33} 9. On June 23, 2020, relator sent by U.S. Mail, a public records request to ODRC‘s bureau of record management, requesting that any judgment entries, sentencing entries, and/or documents regarding any sex offense relator has been convicted of as a juvenile or adult.
{¶ 34} 10. On July 6, 2020, Pierce responded to relator‘s June 23, 2020, request, stating that ODRC maintains sentencing and related entries for which an individual was incarcerated with ODRC but does not maintain those records for non-ODRC incarcerations as an adult or juvenile.
{¶ 35} 11. Relator maintains in his petition for writ of mandamus that, on September 25, 2020, relator submitted an electronic communication to Institutional Inspector Miller, requesting public records of all electronic communication relator submitted to Campbell in June 2020; the June 17, 2020, electronic communication relator submitted to the SCI investigator; the June 17, 2020, electronic communication submitted to Miller, and the June 18, 2020, grievance. Relator asserts that Miller responded on October 2, 2020, that he has been directed by central office not to print kites.
{¶ 36} 12. On November 2, 2020, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, in which he claimed respondents failed to comply with his public records requests pursuant to
{¶ 37} 13. ODRC submitted as evidence in this case a January 4, 2021, affidavit from Pierce. Pierce averred that, after the present litigation was initiated, she conducted another search of ODRC records, but she could find no sentencing records, judgment entries, or similar records relating to relator‘s ODRC incarcerations and most-recent request for transitional control maintained by ODRC. She also averred that she researched relator‘s prior requests for transitional control as they relate to his public-records requests and found he was deemed ineligible for transitional control on his prior
{¶ 38} 14. ODRC also submitted a January 12, 2021, affidavit, from Campbell. Campbell averred that, after an exhaustive search, she determined that no record of relator‘s June 19, 2020, request exists, and she has no record of receiving a paper kite from relator on or around June 19, 2020.
Conclusions of Law:
{¶ 39} In order for this court to issue a writ of mandamus, a relator must ordinarily show a clear legal right to the relief sought, a clear legal duty on the part of the respondent to provide such relief, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967). However, relators in public-records mandamus cases need not establish the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. ACLU of Ohio v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 128 Ohio St.3d 256, 2011-Ohio-625, ¶ 24, citing State ex rel. Morgan v. New Lexington, 112 Ohio St.3d 33, 2006-Ohio-6365, ¶ 41.
{¶ 40}
{¶ 41}
(F) Except as otherwise provided in division (C) of this section, records of inmates committed to the department of rehabilitation and correction as well as records of persons under the supervision of the adult parole authority shall not be considered public records as defined in section 149.43 of the Revised Code.
{¶ 42} Recently, the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed what constituted “records of inmates,” as used in
{¶ 43} In the present case, relator requested (1) any judgment entries, sentencing entries, and/or documents regarding any sex or arson offenses he has been convicted of whether as a juvenile or adult, and (2) printouts of all the electronic communications relator sent to Campbell. All of these records requested by relator fit within the definition of “records of inmates” in
{¶ 44} Furthermore, a writ of mandamus will not issue when the uncontroverted evidence shows that the requested documents do not exist. State ex rel. Lanham v. Smith, 112 Ohio St.3d 527, 2007-Ohio-609, ¶ 15. Here, Pierce averred she could find no sentencing records, judgment entries, or similar records maintained by ODRC that related to relator‘s ODRC incarcerations, his most-recent request for transitional control, or his prior requests for transitional control. Campbell averred that, after an exhaustive search, she determined that no record of relator‘s June 19, 2020, request exists, and she has no record of receiving a paper kite from relator on or around June 19, 2020. Thus, the evidence presented in this case demonstrates that these requested records do not exist.
{¶ 45} Finally, because ODRC did not fail to comply with a public records request, relator is not eligible for an award of statutory damages or court costs under
{¶ 46} Accordingly, it is the magistrate‘s decision that relator can show neither a clear legal right to receive the requested documents nor a clear legal duty on the part of the respondents to provide such documents. Therefore, the magistrate recommends that this court deny relator‘s petition for writ of mandamus.
/S/ MAGISTRATE
THOMAS W. SCHOLL III
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES