State ex rel. Reese v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr. Legal Dep't

168 Ohio St.3d 647

200 N.E.3d 1083

The STATE EX REL. REESE,

v.OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION LEGAL DEPARTMENT.

No. 2021-0868

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted April 12, 2022

Decided June 23, 2022

Thomas Reese, Cambridge, pro se.

Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Kelly D. Becker, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Relator, Thomas Reese, is a former inmate of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility ("SOCF"). He seeks a writ of mandamus compelling respondent, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("DRC"), and particularly its "legal department," to provide records he requested in December 2017 and April 2021 under Ohio's Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43. Reese also seeks an award of statutory damages and leave to amend his mandamus complaint to include additional respondents.

{¶ 2} Because DRC withheld some of the requested records based on a public-records exception that is inapplicable to this case, we grant the writ in part. We deny Reese's request for statutory damages and his request to add other respondents to the action.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The December 2017 Requests

{¶ 3} On December 1, 2017, while incarcerated at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center ("NEOCC"), Reese sent a records request by institutional mail addressed to inmate-records officers identified as "Ms. Steepleton" and "Mr. Watkins." He requested "mental health diagnoses from Dr. King and current case load status, medical records pertaining to chronic conditions or treatment for same, [and] pack-up slips from 2007 and 2009." Reese requested the documents on a form for requests made under the federal Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. 552. Reese contends that he needed this information to prove his claims in a then-pending lawsuit in the Ohio Court of Claims.

{¶ 4} According to Reese, he later sent a letter dated December 29, 2017, requesting "several documents from [his] inmate medical and mental health file" from DRC's legal department and the Ohio Attorney General's Office. Reese's letter stated that he had requested those records from the facility in which he was incarcerated at the time but was denied access to them under DRC Policy 07-ORD-11.¹ Reese does not say so expressly, but it appears that he sought the same medical and mental-health records in the December 29 letter that he sought from "Ms. Steepleton" and "Mr. Watkins" in his December 1 FOIA request.

{¶ 5} Reese alleges that the documents he requested were never provided to him. He says that as a result, the Court of Claims denied his claims for which the documents were necessary. Reese unsuccessfully attempted to appeal the Court of Claims’ judgment, and he was ordered to pay $47 in court costs.

B. The April 2021 Requests

{¶ 6} Attached to Reese's complaint is a letter from Reese to the "O.D.R.C. Legal Dept.," dated April 14, 2021. In the letter, Reese stated that he was requesting access to and copies of records pursuant to FOIA and R.C. 149.43(B). Reese requested in the letter 12 items relating to an incident that occurred on December 18, 2019, during which "ODRC agents" allegedly assaulted Reese and "misplaced" his personal property:

1. Video footage from NEOCC's camera system "in photo clip form" showing "D-2-4-6" from 7:25 p.m. to 7:35 p.m.;

2. The investigative report of "the Ohio State patrolmen" dated December 18, 2019, regarding an alleged assault of Reese by a corrections officer;

3. "R.I.B.² records, appeals, conduct reports, witness statements and other correspondence to Columbus legal team and C.I.I.C. in R.I.B. case #19-008139, transcribed";

4. Investigative reports and use-of-force reports "conducted on December 18, 2019";

5. Conduct reports written against Reese by "case manager Madeline at NEOCC on or about November 2019";

6. The "[b]ody medical index" of Reese "and [corrections officer] Townsend conducted" on December 18, 2019, at NEOCC;

7. The "[p]ack-up slip" from Franklin Medical Center ("FMC") dated July 16, 2020; 8. "Pack-up slips from SOCF" dated October 1, 2020, and November 2020;

9. Dental records "done at FMC between May 2020 and June 2020";

10. X-rays and medical-exam reports regarding Reese's right hand and back conducted between March 2020 and July 2020;

11. X-rays of Reese's back taken on December 1, 2020, January 29, 2021, and February 2, 2021; and

12. The "reports and findings" of an "M.R.I. done on" December 23, 2020, and an "E.E.G. done on" January 20, 2021.

Reese alleges that DRC did not respond to these requests prior to his filing of this mandamus action.

C. Reese Commences this Action

{¶ 7} Reese commenced this action on July 13, 2021, seeking a writ of mandamus ordering DRC to provide copies of the requested documents and seeking an award of statutory damages. We granted an alternative writ and ordered the parties to file merit briefs and submit any evidence they intended to present. 164 Ohio St.3d 1454, 2021-Ohio-3438, 174 N.E.3d 802.

{¶ 8} DRC filed evidence showing that it responded to Reese's April 14, 2021 public-records request on August 5, 2021. DRC provided copies of documents responsive to request No. 5 of the April 14 letter. However, DRC did not provide any records in response to Reese's other requests, citing various reasons: (1) some of the records were not in DRC's possession, (2) video footage was not kept in the format Reese had requested, and (3) other records were exempt from disclosure under R.C. 5120.21(F), which pertains to "records of inmates." DRC also informed Reese that the Ohio State Highway Patrol ("OSHP") was the public office that maintains records such as those sought in request No. 2 of the April 14 letter. DRC contends that it provided Reese copies of all public records responsive to the April 14 request that were in its possession. DRC does not mention the December 1 or December 29, 2017 requests in either its merit brief or evidence.

{¶ 9} Following the close of briefing, Reese filed a "request to add to mandamus," in which he asked this court to add "[OSHP] Central Records" and "[OSHP] Southington Post" as respondents in this case. DRC did not respond to that request.

II. ANALYSIS

{¶ 10} Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel compliance with the Public Records Act. R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(b). To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Reese must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence (1) that he has a clear legal right to the requested relief and (2) that DRC has a clear legal duty to provide it. See State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage , 142 Ohio St.3d 392, 2015-Ohio-974, 31 N.E.3d 616, ¶ 10. We construe the Public Records Act liberally in favor of broad access, with any doubt resolved in favor of disclosure of public records. State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton Cty. , 75 Ohio St.3d 374, 376, 662 N.E.2d 334 (1996). "Exceptions to disclosure under the Public Records Act are strictly construed against the public-records custodian, and the custodian has the burden to establish the applicability of an exception." State ex rel. Miller v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol , 136 Ohio St.3d 350, 2013-Ohio-3720, 995 N.E.2d 1175, ¶ 23. To meet its burden of establishing the applicability of an exception, the records custodian must prove that the requested records "fall squarely within the exception." State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley , 118 Ohio St.3d 81, 2008-Ohio-1770, 886 N.E.2d 206, ¶ 10.

A. The December 2017 Requests

{¶ 11} In Reese's December 1, 2017 records request, he specified that he made the request pursuant to the federal FOIA. Indeed, Reese submitted a form specific to FOIA requests and did not refer to R.C. 149.43 as a basis for his request. Accordingly, Reese's mandamus claim based on the December 1 request lacks merit, because FOIA applies only to federal entities. See State ex rel. Carr v. Akron , 112 Ohio St.3d 351, 2006-Ohio-6714, 859 N.E.2d 948, ¶ 33 ; 5 U.S.C. 551(1) and 552(f).

{¶ 12} As to Reese's December 29, 2017 request, it appears that he directed it to the "O.D.R.C. Legal Dept." and the "Ohio Attorney General." Reese requested the same records that he sought in the December 1 FOIA request but cited R.C. 149.43 as a basis for his request. There is no evidence in the record, however, to show that Reese sent the December 29 request to DRC. In the affidavits accompanying Reese's complaint and merit briefs, Reese states that he sent the December 1 request to DRC but does not state that he sent the December 29 request. Reese's complaint alleges only that he sent the December 1 request and not the December 29 request. And although the copy of the December 1 request that Reese submitted to this court includes a notation that it was sent "by institutional mail," there is no similar indication as to the December 29 request.

{¶ 13} Reese bears the burden of pleading and proving facts showing that he requested a public record pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and that DRC did not make the record available to him. See Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Office , 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020-Ohio-5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 26. Reese has neither pleaded nor proven that he sent the December 29, 2017 request to DRC. He is therefore not entitled to relief in mandamus regarding that request.

B. The April 2021 Requests

{¶ 14} Reese acknowledges that DRC provided "a partial response" to his April 14, 2021 requests, which he received on August 6, 2021. However, he contends that he is entitled to (1) the documents withheld by DRC and (2) statutory damages. Reese is correct that he is entitled to some of the withheld records, but he is not entitled to statutory damages.

1. Request No. 1

{¶ 15} In request No. 1 of the April 14, 2021 letter, Reese sought video footage of a specified area of NEOCC "in photo clip form" for the period of 7:25 p.m. to 7:35 p.m. on December 18, 2019. DRC responded that "[s]ecurity camera footage is not maintained in this format and DRC is unable to convert thirty minutes of footage to screen frames. Please...