THE STATE EX REL. MCDOUGALD v. SEHLMEYER
No. 2019-1659
Supreme Court of Ohio
September 17, 2020
2020-Ohio-4428
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. McDougald v. Sehlmeyer, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4428.]
NOTICE
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
SLIP OPINION NO. 2020-OHIO-4428
THE STATE EX REL. MCDOUGALD v. SEHLMEYER.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. McDougald v. Sehlmeyer, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4428.]
Mandamus—Public Records Act—
(No. 2019-1659—Submitted June 2, 2020—Decided September 17, 2020.)
IN MANDAMUS.
{¶ 1} Relator, Jerone McDougald, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel respondent, Sonrisa Sehlmeyer, to produce a document pursuant to a public-records request and to pay statutory damages and court costs. Also pending are McDougald‘s unopposed motions seeking leave to amend his complaint and leave to submit additional
I. Background
{¶ 2} On September 24, 2019, McDougald, an inmate at the Toledo Correctional Institution (“TCI“), submitted a public-records request for a use-of-force report concerning an incident in which he was involved. He delivered the public-records request via prison kite.
{¶ 3} Sehlmeyer is the official responsible for public-records requests at TCI. She responded to McDougald on September 30 with a letter, writing, “We have researched your request; however, you currently have insufficient funds in your account to complete this request. Re-submit your cash slip when there are sufficient funds available.” Sehlmeyer did not indicate how much the record would cost to copy or how much money McDougald had in his inmate account.
{¶ 4} On December 2, 2019, McDougald filed an original action against Sehlmeyer in this court, seeking a writ of mandamus. He alleged that at the time of his public-records request, he did have sufficient funds in his inmate account to pay for the record and that Sehlmeyer‘s response was therefore false. He alleged that he had $1.30 in his account at the time, but he did not indicate the cost to copy the records.
{¶ 5} We issued an alternative writ and ordered the parties to submit evidence and file briefs in accordance with
II. Legal analysis
A. Standard of review
{¶ 6} Ohio‘s Public Records Act,
{¶ 7} To be entitled to a writ, McDougald must demonstrate that he has a clear legal right to the requested relief and that Sehlmeyer has a clear legal duty to provide that relief. State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 142 Ohio St.3d 392, 2015-Ohio-974, 31 N.E.3d 616, ¶ 10. McDougald must prove his right to relief by clear and convincing evidence. Id. However,
B. McDougald‘s first motion for leave
{¶ 8} In his complaint, McDougald alleged that he had $1.30 in his account when he submitted his public-records request. However, the evidence in the record shows that for the period of time including September 24 (the date of McDougald‘s public-records request) and September 30 (the date of Sehlmeyer‘s response), McDougald had $1.25 in his inmate account.
{¶ 9} On February 3, 2020, McDougald filed his first motion for leave, asking to amend his complaint to indicate an account balance of $1.25. However, because the correct figure is in the record, there is no
C. The merits of the public-records claim
{¶ 10} McDougald claims that Sehlmeyer violated her duties under the Public Records Act when she “denied” his public-records request due to his having insufficient funds. But Sehlmeyer did not deny his request. To the contrary, as stated by Sehlmeyer in her affidavit that she submitted as evidence in this case, she informed McDougald that he lacked sufficient funds in his inmate account and notified him that he could “re-submit his cash slip when sufficient funds were available.”
{¶ 11} Ohio‘s Public Records Act does not require a records custodian to provide copies of records free of charge. State ex rel. Call v. Fragale, 104 Ohio St.3d 276, 2004-Ohio-6589, 819 N.E.2d 294, ¶ 6. Instead, the statute “requires only that copies of public records be made available at cost.” Id., citing
{¶ 12} In her affidavit, Sehlmeyer attests that McDougald had insufficient funds in his inmate account to pay for a copy of the public record he was requesting. According to Sehlmeyer, “[t]he assessment that he had insufficient funds was determined by the institutional cashier‘s office.” McDougald alleges that he did have sufficient funds in his inmate account to pay for the public record, pointing to the evidence that he had $1.25 in his account. But McDougald‘s account balance is not the only evidence that is necessary for him to meet his burden. He has presented no evidence showing what it would cost for a copy of the use-of-force report. Indeed, he never followed up with Sehlmeyer to inquire how much a copy would cost. Therefore, he has not shown that Sehlmeyer failed to fulfill any of her obligations as a public-records custodian.
{¶ 13} Sehlmeyer provided a complete response to McDougald‘s public-records request. We therefore deny his request for a writ of mandamus.
D. Statutory damages, court costs, and McDougald‘s second motion for leave
{¶ 14} In his complaint, McDougald requests an award of statutory damages for what he alleges was Sehlmeyer‘s “bad faith” denial of his request. A person requesting public records “shall” be entitled to recover an award of statutory damages “if a court determines that the public office or the person responsible for public records failed to comply with an obligation in accordance with [
{¶ 15} Under the version of
{¶ 16} Finally, McDougald is not entitled to an award of court costs. Court costs may be awarded under the Public Records Act only when a court grants a writ of mandamus compelling an official to comply with obligations imposed by the act,
III. Conclusion
{¶ 17} Based on the foregoing, we deny the request for a writ of mandamus, both motions for leave, and the requests for court costs and statutory damages.
Writ denied.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., concur.
KENNEDY, J., concurs, with an opinion.
KENNEDY, J., concurring.
{¶ 18} I concur in the majority‘s decision because I must. As the majority states, relator, Jerone McDougald, must prove his right to relief by clear and convincing evidence. State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 142 Ohio St.3d 392, 2015-Ohio-974, 31 N.E.3d 616, ¶ 10. In this case, respondent, Sonrisa Sehlmeyer, the official responsible for responding to public-records requests at Toledo Correctional Institution (“TCI“), denied McDougald‘s public-records request because McDougald did not have enough money in his prison account to pay for a copy of the record. The record at issue is the use-of-force report documenting an incident involving McDougald at TCI in September 2019.
{¶ 19} It is undisputed that McDougald had $1.25 in his prison account at the time of his request. But what is still unknown to this court in this matter is the number of pages in the use-of-force report and the total cost of producing a copy for McDougald. McDougald submitted his prison-account information with his complaint, and his prison-account information indicates that the copy charge for some of his previous public-records requests was five cents per page. But McDougald submitted no evidence as to what the cost per page was for a copy of the use-of-force report at issue here. Further, McDougald had the burden to provide a page count for the document—he could have met that burden had he requested this court to inspect the document in camera. Then and only then could this court determine whether Sehlmeyer‘s denial of the record for lack of
{¶ 20} There is no doubt that the use-of-force report that McDougald seeks is a public record. But under the plain language of
Jerone McDougald, pro se.
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Jared S. Yee, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.