[Cite as State ex rel. Ware v. Giavasis,

.]

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JUDGES: STATE OF OHIO, EX REL, : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. KIMANI E. WARE : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. : Hon. Earle E. Wise, J. Relator : : -vs- : Case No. 2019CA00003 : LOUIS P. GIAVASIS : STARK COUNTY : OPINION CLERK OF COURTS

Respondent

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus

JUDGMENT: Summary Judgment granted in favor of Respondent

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 28, 2019

APPEARANCES:

For Respondent For Relator

JOHN D. FERRERO KIMANI WARE Pro Se Stark County Prosecutor # A470-743 BY DAVID E. DEIBEL Trumbull Correctional Institute Assistant Prosecutor 5701 Burnett Road 110 Central Plaza South, Ste. 510 Leavittsburg, OH 44430 Canton, OH 44702 Stark County, Case No. 2019CA00003 2

Gwin, P.J.

{¶1} Relator, Kimani E. Ware, has filed a Complaint for Writ of Mandamus

requesting this Court order Respondent to provide Relator with certain requested public

records. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment.

{¶2} Relator submitted two public records requests to Respondent. Relator was

incarcerated at the time the public records requests were made. The first request was

for copies of Respondent’s public records policy, records retention schedule, and records

retention policy. The second request was for copies of pleadings from a criminal case.

{¶3} The records from the first request have been provided.

{¶4} “‘Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel compliance with R.C.

149.43, Ohio's Public Records Act.’ State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible

Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees,

, 2006–Ohio–903,

; R.C. 149.43(C). The Public Records Act implements the state's policy

that ‘open government serves the public interest and our democratic system.’ State ex

rel. Dann v. Taft,

, 2006–Ohio–1825,

.

‘Consistent with this policy, we construe R.C. 149.43 liberally in favor of broad access

and resolve any doubt in favor of disclosure of public records.’ State ex rel. Glasgow v.

Jones,

, 2008–Ohio–4788,

.” State ex rel. Perrea

v. Cincinnati Pub. Schools,

, 2009–Ohio–4762,

.

{¶5} The Ohio Public Records Act imposes restrictions upon inmates seeking

certain public records. R.C. 149.43(B)(8) provides, Stark County, Case No. 2019CA00003 3

“A public office or person responsible for public records is not

required to permit a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a criminal

conviction or a juvenile adjudication to inspect or to obtain a copy of any

public record concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution or

concerning what would be a criminal investigation or prosecution if the

subject of the investigation or prosecution were an adult, 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 this section

and the judge who imposed the sentence or made the adjudication with

respect to the person, 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.” R.C. 149.43.

{¶6} As the Supreme Court has observed, R.C. 149.43(B) “clearly sets forth

heightened requirements for inmates seeking public records. The General Assembly's

broad language clearly includes offense and incident reports as documents that are

subject to the additional requirement to be met by inmates seeking records concerning a

criminal investigation or prosecution. The General Assembly clearly evidenced a public-

policy decision to restrict a convicted inmate's unlimited access to public records in order

to conserve law enforcement resources.” State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton,

,

,

.

{¶7} Relator has not averred that he sought and received a finding from the

sentencing court allowing him to obtain copies of the requested public records. The plain

language of the statute does not limit the need to obtain a judicial finding only when an Stark County, Case No. 2019CA00003 4

inmate is requesting his own records. In order to establish a clear legal right to the

requested records, Relator must establish he obtained judicial approval to obtain the

records. Relator has failed to establish he was entitled to the requested records because

he did not obtain judicial approval.

{¶8} For this reason, we find Relator has failed to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted and grant Respondent’s motion for summary judgment.