State ex rel. Russell v. O'Shaughnessy

1

2023-Ohio-3949

State ex rel. Mark R. Russell, Relator, v. Ms. Maryellen O'Shaughnessy, Franklin County Clerk of Courts et al., Respondents.

No. 23AP-34

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

October 31, 2023

On brief: Mark R. Russell, pro se.

On brief: G. Gary Tyack, Prosecuting Attorney, and Jennifer Warmolts, for respondent.

IN MANDAMUS ON OBJECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION

DORRIAN, J.

{¶ 1} Relator, Mark R. Russell, who is incarcerated at London Correctional Institution, commenced this original action in mandamus seeking a writ ordering respondent Franklin County Clerk of Courts Administrative Office, to provide relator with records related to a criminal complaint filed against him on October 22, 2001.

{¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, this matter was referred to a magistrate on January 27, 2023.

{¶ 3} Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint asserting it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because relator had no clear legal right to the relief sought, respondent had no clear legal duty to perform the requested act, and relator had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

{¶ 4} On May 17, 2023, the magistrate issued a decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law which is appended hereto. The magistrate determined relator had not complied with R.C. 14943(B)(8), which imposes restrictions on an incarcerated person's ability to obtain certain public records:

A public office or person responsible for public records is not required to permit a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a criminal conviction * * * to inspect or to obtain a copy of any public record concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution * * *, unless the request to inspect or to obtain a copy of the record is for the purpose of acquiring information that is subject to release as a public record under [R.C. 14943] and the judge who imposed the sentence * * *, or the judge's successor in office, finds that the information sought in the public record is necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim of the person.

The magistrate concluded that R.C. 14943 governed relator's records request, although relator did not cite the statute in the request. The magistrate further concluded that because relator is currently incarcerated and failed to comply with R.C. 14943(B)(8) by obtaining a finding from the sentencing judge, he failed to demonstrate a legal right to the requested relief. Therefore, the magistrate recommends this court grant respondent's motion to dismiss relator's mandamus complaint.

{¶ 5} Relator has filed the following objection to the magistrate's decision:

[T]he magistrate totally ignored [relator's] argument concerning the proper Local-Rule [relator] filed his document request pursuant to.

{¶ 6} In his response to respondent's motion to dismiss and in his objection, relator asserts his request for records was made pursuant to Loc.R. 7 of the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, General Division, rather than the Public Records Act. Relator claimed he was entitled to the requested records under Loc.R. 7.02, which provides for access to pleadings and other documents:

In cases pending where the parties or their counsel deem it necessary to have copies of pleadings, the Clerk shall on request furnish copies, and the expenses of one copy for the opposing party shall be taxed in the bill of costs. Copies of all other papers, except bills of exceptions, belonging to the files of the Court, shall, on demand, be furnished by the Clerk to attorneys or parties interested upon payment of the usual fee.

{¶ 7} By its own terms, Loc.R. 7.02 applies to cases pending in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. The term "pending" is not defined in the Local Rules; therefore, consistent with the general rules of interpretation, we give the term its plain and ordinary meaning. See Thomas v. Logue, 10th Dist. No. 21AP-385, 2022-Ohio-1603, ¶ 15, quoting Rhodes v. New Philadelphia, 129 Ohio St.3d 304, 2011-Ohio-3279, ¶ 17 ("Where 'a term is not defined in the statute, it should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning.' "). "In giving words their common, everyday meaning, it is common for a court to rely on dictionary definitions." Id. Black's Law Dictionary defines "pending" as "[remaining undecided; awaiting decision." Black's Law Dictionary 1314 (10th Ed.2014). This definition of pending is consistent with other uses of the term in the Local Rules. See, e.g., LocR. 25.04 ("If the entry does not dispose of all claims, counterclaims and/or cross-claims, it shall specify what claims remain pending."); Loc.R. 31.03(C)(3) ("If [Loc.R. 31.03(C)(1) and (2)] are not applicable, when a single defendant is indicted in a new case, and he or she already has a pending case with a judge of this court, the newly indicted case shall be assigned to the same judge assigned to the already-pending case.").

{¶ 8} Relator sought records related to a criminal case filed against him on October 22, 2001. That case was not pending in the common pleas court at the time of relator's records request in late 2022, because relator was convicted and sentenced on June 20, 2003. State v. Russell, Franklin C.P. No. 01CR-6462 (June 20, 2003) (judgment entry). This court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence on direct appeal on May 6, 2004. State v. Russell, 10th Dist. No. 03AP-666, 2004-Ohio-2501. Thus, because the case was not pending in the common pleas court, Loc.R. 7.02 did not require respondent to provide relator the records he sought.

{¶ 9} The magistrate properly determined that relator's request was governed by the Public Records Act.^[1] See State ex rel. Bey v. Byrd, 160 Ohio St.3d 141, 2020-Ohio-2766, ¶ 11-13. The records relator sought-an affidavit of probable cause or other documentation filed with a criminal complaint-clearly concerned a criminal prosecution; therefore, respondent had no duty to provide them to relator without a finding pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(8) by the sentencing judge or the sentencing judge's successor. State ex rel. Ware v. Parikh, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-2536, ¶ 16 ("In the absence of the necessary finding by the sentencing judge, an inmate is not entitled to the requested records."). Because relator did not comply with R.C. 149.43(B)(8), he cannot establish a clear legal right to the relief requested and that respondent had a clear legal duty to provide it.^[2] Therefore, relator is not entitled to extraordinary relief in mandamus. See State ex rel US Tubular Prods. v. Indus. Comm., 10th Dist. No. 18AP-795, 2020-Ohio-3427, ¶ 28.

{¶ 10} Upon review of the magistrate's decision, an independent review of the record, and due consideration of relator's objection, we find the magistrate has properly determined the pertinent facts and applied the appropriate law. We therefore overrule relator's objection to the magistrate's decision and adopt the magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss is granted, and relator's complaint for a writ of mandamus is dismissed.

Objection overruled; motion to dismiss granted; action dismissed.

BEATTY BLUNT, P.J, and BOGGS, J, concur

APPENDIX

Rendered on May 17, 2023

Mark R. Russell, pro se.

G. Gary Tyack, Prosecuting Attorney, and Jennifer Warmolts, for respondent.

MAGISTRATE'S DECISION

THOMAS W. SCHOLL III, MAGISTRATE

IN MANDAMUS ON RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

{¶ 11} Relator, Mark R. Russell, has filed this original action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, Franklin County Clerk of Courts, Administrative Office, to provide him with a copy of the affidavit of probable cause and/or other documentation that may have been filed with/accompanied the sworn complaint filed on October 22, 2001, and if no affidavit of probable cause or any other documentation was filed with/accompanied the sworn complaint filed on October 22, 2001, to provide him with a written response stating that no such documents were filed. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R 12(B)(6). Relator has filed a response.

Findings of Fact:

{¶ 12} 1. Relator is a prisoner incarcerated at London Correctional Institution.

{¶ 13} 2. Respondent is a governmental agency that, among other things, accepts, processes, and manages court filings for various courts in Franklin County, Ohio.

{¶ 14} 3. In his petition for writ of mandamus, relator alleges that, on October 22, 2001, a sworn complaint was filed against him in the Franklin County Municipal Court ("municipal court"), and an arrest warrant was issued by the municipal court clerk of courts based upon that complaint.

{¶ 15} 4. In his petition, relator alleges that one week before Thanksgiving 2022, he sent a letter to the municipal court clerk of courts requesting a copy of the affidavit of probable cause and/or other documentation that may have been filed with/accompanied the sworn complaint filed on October 22, 2001, and if no affidavit of probable cause or any other documentation was filed with/accompanied the sworn complaint filed on October 22, 2001, that respondent provide him with a written response stating that no such documents were filed. Relator alleges that the municipal court clerk of courts did not respond.

{¶ 16} 5. In his petition, relator alleges that on December 13, 2022, he sent a notarized letter to respondent informing respondent that he had sent the prior letter to the municipal court and informed respondent of the request. Relator alleges that respondent did not respond.

{¶ 17} 6. On January 19, 2023, relator filed the present petition for writ of mandamus,...