State ex rel. Penland v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (Slip Opinion)State ex rel. Penland v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (Slip Opinion)
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. 2019-OHIO-4130
THE STATE EX REL. PENLAND v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION ET AL.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Penland v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-4130.]
Mandamus—Public records—
(No. 2019-0018—Submitted July 9, 2019—Decided October 9, 2019.)
IN MANDAMUS.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} In this original action, relator, Alex Penland, an inmate at the Toledo Correctional Institution (“TCI”), seeks a writ of mandamus to compel respondents, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“DRC”) and Sonrisa Sehlmeyer, to make available for inspection the contract under which a vendor, Aramark, is
Background
{¶ 2} Penland alleges that on October 1, 2018, he made a public-records request to Sehlmeyer, the administrative assistant to TCI’s warden, in which he asked to review the Aramark contract. Respondents do not dispute that the contract is a public record. And Sehlmeyer acknowledges that she is responsible for complying with public-records requests at TCI, which is a prison within the DRC system.
{¶ 3} Penland did not receive an immediate response to his request, and as a result, he filed an inmate grievance on October 17. When the grievance process was not resolved to his satisfaction, he filed this original action. After respondents filed an answer to Penland’s complaint, we granted an alternative writ. The parties have filed their briefs and evidence, and the matter is now ripe for decision.
{¶ 4} Penland attached to his complaint a copy of his handwritten records request, which was accompanied by a “kite” form1 that is dated October 1 and addressed to Sehlmeyer. But respondents contend that Penland did not actually make a public-records request on October 1. They rely on an affidavit in which Sehlmeyer testifies that she first learned of Penland’s request when she received his mandamus complaint on January 18, 2019. She says she knows that her office did not receive Penland’s request, because the kite attached to his complaint does not have her handwriting on it. She explains that her standard practice upon receiving a kite is to respond in writing and return it to the inmate.
{¶ 5} Sehlmeyer also states in her affidavit that TCI does not have a copy of the Aramark contract and that a copy is kept at a DRC office in Columbus. Respondents presented evidence showing that on January 18—the same day
Analysis
Preliminary issues
{¶ 6} Before turning to the main issue presented, it is necessary to address two threshold issues that arise under respondents’ arguments—first, whether a justiciable controversy exists and second, whether Penland actually requested the document from its custodian.
{¶ 7} Respondents argue that Penland’s claim is moot because they fully complied with his request for information by responding to his request in January 2019. “In general, a public-records mandamus case becomes moot when the public office provides the requested records.” State ex rel. Martin v. Greene, 156 Ohio St.3d 482, 2019-Ohio-1827, 129 N.E.3d 419, ¶ 7. But respondents did not give Penland the requested record. Penland’s claim is not moot because there still is a controversy about whether respondents satisfied their duty under
{¶ 8} Respondents also argue that they had no duty to satisfy Penland’s request because he directed it to Sehlmeyer, who works at TCI, and the Aramark contract is not maintained at TCI. They contend that Sehlmeyer and TCI, as noncustodians, had no duty with respect to Penland’s request and that Sehlmeyer “went above and beyond” by volunteering to help Penland obtain a copy of the contract from DRC. Respondents fail to acknowledge that DRC—not TCI—is a respondent in this case. Sehlmeyer herself confirmed that TCI is part of DRC and that DRC is a custodian of the Aramark contract. In fact, Sehlmeyer’s January 18 letter to Penland, in which she responded to his request, is on DRC letterhead. Under
Inspection of a public record
{¶ 9} We construe the Public Records Act,
{¶ 10} Relying on Sehlmeyer’s testimony that she first learned of Penland’s request after he filed his complaint, respondents initially argue that they had no clear legal duty to respond to the request because they never received it. This argument lacks merit. Even if respondents lacked knowledge of Penland’s request when he claims to have made it in October 2018, they clearly knew about it in January 2019. Upon learning of the request, they responded directly to Penland by letter explaining how he could obtain the Aramark contract. Because respondents did not just defend against the lawsuit by arguing that they never received Penland’s request but also chose to address his request on its own terms, we conclude that respondents assumed a duty to respond to the request.
{¶ 11}
{¶ 12} When a copy of a record is requested,
{¶ 13} Because the contract is maintained in Columbus, for Penland to inspect it, DRC (the document’s custodian) would need to deliver it to TCI. Again,
{¶ 14} In examining the meaning of
{¶ 15} Because Penland has not shown that respondents have a clear legal duty to deliver the Aramark contract to TCI for his inspection at no cost to him, we deny the writ of mandamus.
Statutory damages
{¶ 16} Penland argues that he is entitled to statutory damages under
Writ denied.
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., concur.
KENNEDY, J., concurs, with an opinion.
FISCHER, J., not participating.
__________________
KENNEDY, J., concurring.
{¶ 17} I concur in the judgment of the majority because I must, but it is troubling that the result in this case is that a person who has the right to view a public record cannot view that record. The General Assembly, in
{¶ 18} The relator, Alex Penland, is incarcerated in the Toledo Correctional Institution. The record that Penland seeks is subject to disclosure to an incarcerated person but is held in the main office of respondent Department of Rehabilitation and Correction in Columbus. Penland complains that because he is indigent and cannot afford a copy of the record, he needs to inspect the record in person. The General Assembly makes no provision in the Public Records Act,
{¶ 19}
{¶ 20} Therefore, an incarcerated person’s right to personally inspect records is limited to those public records held in the facility in which he or she is incarcerated. Because the public record Penland seeks is not held in the institution housing him and because the General Assembly has not enacted a provision that an
________________________
Alex Penland, pro se.
Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, and Christina E. Mahy, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
________________________