UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO JOHN GILLESPIE, ) CASE NO. 1:25 CV 1562 ) Relator, ) JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER ) v. ) ) O.D.R.C., et al., ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION ) AND ORDER ) ) Respondents. ) John Gillespie (“Relator”), an Ohio prisoner incarcerated in the Mansfield Correctional Institution proceeding pro se, filed this action seeking a Writ of Mandamus against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”), ODRC’s Record Keeper K. Plank, and “sub contracted company Global Tel Link & Via Path Staff” (collectively “Respondents.”) (Doc. No. 1.) In his Petition, Relator seeks mandamus relief on the basis that he submitted a valid public records request on July 3, 2025, which has not been fulfilled. He contends this violates Ohio Rev. Code § 149.43(B)(1), which governs the production of public records, and he seeks an order compelling Respondents to provide him the requested records. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and “have a duty to consider their subject matter jurisdiction in regard to every case and may raise the issue sua sponte.” Answers in Genesis of Kentucky, Inc. v. Creation Ministries Intern., Ltd.,

(6th Cir. 2009). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, [it] must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The Court finds that this action must be dismissed for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Ohio Rev. Code § 149.43(C)(1) expressly sets out the remedy for an alleged failure of a person responsible for public records to comply with a records request in Ohio. The statute provides that an aggrieved person may either file a complaint “with the [Ohio] clerk of the court of claims or the court of common pleas under section 2743.75 of the Ohio Revised Code,” or

“commence a mandamus action to obtain a judgment that orders the public office or person responsible for the public record to comply.” Ohio Rev. Code § 149.43(C)(1)(a) and (b). And the statute expressly states where the mandamus action may be brought: The mandamus action may be commenced in the court of common pleas of the county in which division (B) of this section allegedly was not complied with, in the supreme court pursuant to its original jurisdiction under Section 2 of Article IV, Ohio Constitution, or in the court of appeals for the appellate district in which division (B) of this section allegedly was not complied with pursuant to its original jurisdiction under Section 3 of Article IV, Ohio Constitution. Ohio Rev. Code § 149.43(C)(1)(b). Accordingly, under the statute, this federal court lacks jurisdiction to order Relator the mandamus relief he seeks. Rather, Relator must seek such relief in the state courts as provided by the statute. He has not established a basis for federal subject-matter in this case. See, e.g., Glaze v. Horton, No. 4: 24 cv-1815,

, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2025) (dismissing for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pro se action seeking mandamus relief for alleged violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 149.43). Conclusion Accordingly, this action is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). This dismissal is without prejudice to any claims Plaintiff may assert in state court on the alleged facts. The Court further certifies, pursuant to

(a)(3), that an -2- appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. AARON POLSTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-