STATE OF OHIO ex rel. VINCENT EL ALAN PARKER BEY v. JULIE LOOMIS, et al.
CASE NO. 2019-T-0035
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO
July 27, 2020
2020-Ohio-3933
PER CURIAM OPINION
Judgment: Petition dismissed.
Vincent El Alan Parker Bey, pro se, PID#: A310-623, Trumbull Correctional Institution, 5701 Burnett Road, P.O. Box 901, Leavittsburg, OH 44430 (Relator).
Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, State Office Tower, 30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215, and Jared Sun Yee, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Justice Section, Corrections Unit, 150 East Gay Street, 16th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215 (For Respondents).
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Following remand from the Supreme Court of Ohio, the original action of relator, Vincent El Alan Parker Bey, is again before us, seeking a writ of mandamus against respondents, Julie Loomis (“Ms. Loomis“), the administrative assistant for the warden of the Trumbull Correctional Institution, and the Trumbull Correctional Institution
{¶2} Because relator failed to file a proper affidavit of his prior civil actions and appeals, we dismiss his petition.
{¶3} Relator is an inmate at the Trumbull Correctional Institution. He alleged that he made a public records request for (1) “a copy of the legal mail log for the months of January and February of 2019,” and (2) “a copy of the dates and times that the institutional inspector makes rounds in the housing units for the months of December, 2018, January and February 2019.” He further alleged that respondents illegally seized his certified mail and that they only partially complied with his public records request as the direct result of a grievance. He acknowledged that he received copies of the legal mailroom logs on April 11, 2019 but alleged he did not receive a written explanation as to why his public records request for the institutional inspector logs was denied.
{¶4} In response to relator‘s petition, respondents filed a motion to dismiss, asserting relator‘s claim is moot because they complied with relator‘s public records request pursuant to
{¶5} In State ex rel. Parker Bey v. Loomis, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2019-T-0035, 2019-Ohio-3446, we dismissed relator‘s petition as moot, finding that the evidence submitted by respondents demonstrated that relator had received the records he requested and that respondents had complied with
{¶6} Relator appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which in State ex rel. Parker Bey v. Loomis, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-1463, reversed and remanded our decision, determining that the letter from Ms. Loomis to relator requesting additional information to fulfill his records request indicated that respondent did not fulfill relator‘s public records request. Id. at ¶8. The court also stated that if we determined on remand that relator was entitled to a writ of mandamus with respect to the second part of his record requests, relator would also be entitled to an award of court costs. Furthermore, if we determined that respondents failed to timely or fully respond to relator‘s request and because he sent his request by certified mail, he may be entitled to statutory damages. Id. at ¶9.
{¶7} Upon remand, we issued an alternative writ for respondents to file an answer or motion to dismiss in accordance with Civ.R.12(B).
{¶8} Respondents filed a motion to dismiss relator‘s action for failure to comply with the mandatory filing requirements of
{¶9} Relator, in turn, filed a reply to respondents’ motion to dismiss, arguing that respondents’ motion to dismiss should be denied because “the motion does not state any of the (7) defenses within Civil Rule 12.”
{¶10} Because it is undisputed that relator is an inmate and that respondents are government employees, relator was required to comply with
{¶11}
{¶12} “(1) A brief description of the nature of the civil action or appeal;
{¶13} “(2) The case name, case number, and the court in which the civil action or appeal was brought;
{¶14} “(3) The name of each party to the civil action or appeal;
{¶15} “(4) The outcome of the civil action or appeal, including whether the court dismissed the civil action or appeal as frivolous or malicious under state or federal law or rule of court, whether the court made an award against the inmate or the inmate‘s counsel
{¶16} A review of relator‘s affidavit reveals respondents are correct that relator failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of
{¶17} “The requirements of
{¶18} Because relator did not strictly comply with the statute, relator‘s petition is dismissed.
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J., MATT LYNCH, J., MARY JANE TRAPP, J., concur.