[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




      THE STATE EX REL . BROWN v. COLUMBIANA COUNTY J AIL ET AL .
     [Cite as State ex rel. Brown v. Columbiana Cty. Jail, 

.]
Mandamus—Public-records requests—County jail is not a person or office capable
        of being sued or responsible for public records—Records held by private
        jail administrators, which maintained quasi-agency relationship with
        sheriff’s office, are public records—Sheriff’s office has clear legal duty to
        obtain from private jail administrators and produce records responsive to
        inmate’s public-records requests—Limited writ granted, ordering sheriff’s
        office to obtain and disclose to inmate any additional public records
        responsive to his requests or else certify that no additional responsive
        records exist.
     (No. 2023-1218—Submitted July 9, 2024—Decided October 17, 2024.)
                                     IN MANDAMUS.
                                  __________________
        The per curiam opinion below was joined by KENNEDY, C.J., and DEWINE,
DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, and DETERS, JJ. FISCHER, J., dissented.


        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 1} In this original action, relator, Terry Brown, an inmate at the Belmont
Correctional Institution, seeks (1) a writ of mandamus ordering respondents, the
Corrections Division of the Columbiana County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff Brian
McLaughlin (collectively, “the sheriff’s office”) and the Columbiana County Jail,
to produce records he requested under R.C. 149.43, Ohio’s Public Records Act, and
(2) statutory damages. In August 2023, Brown sent the sheriff’s office two public-
records requests seeking records regarding personnel employed at the Columbiana
County Jail between January 1, 2017, and July 1, 2018; current policies on the
                               SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




intake and booking of inmates, including inmates showing signs of intoxication,
impairment, injury, medical issues, or psychological problems; and records-
retention policies relevant to the other requests.
        {¶ 2} The sheriff’s office does not directly oversee the daily operations of
the jail. Instead, as permitted by R.C. 9.06, the jail has been operated by two private
contractors (“the private jail administrators”) during the time periods at issue.
Because quasi-agency relationships have existed between the sheriff’s office and
the private jail administrators, we grant a limited writ of mandamus ordering the
sheriff’s office to obtain and disclose to Brown any additional responsive public
records, if such records exist, or to certify that no additional responsive records
exist. We defer ruling on Brown’s request for statutory damages until after the
sheriff’s office has complied with the limited writ.
                   I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
                  A. Administration of Columbiana County Jail
        {¶ 3} Since at least January 2014, private jail administrators—not the
sheriff’s office—have operated the Columbiana County Jail.                Community
Education Centers, Inc./GEO Group, Inc. (“GEO Group”) operated the jail between
January 2014 and sometime in 2019. Since January 2022, Correctional Solutions
Group, L.L.C., has operated the jail. As permitted by R.C. 9.06(A)(1), Columbiana
County and the private jail administrators executed contracts authorizing the latter
to fulfill duties ordinarily fulfilled by the sheriff’s office.
        {¶ 4} As required by R.C. 9.06(B)(9), the contracts provide for a contract
monitor—a county employee who has complete access to the jail and all records of
the facilities except for the private jail administrators’ financial records. Sergeant
Deputy Sheriff Hartley Malone has been the contract monitor at all times relevant
to this action.




                                             2
                                January Term, 2024




                            B. The Records Requests
       {¶ 5} In August 2023, Brown submitted two public-records requests to the
sheriff’s office. On August 18, Brown faxed his requests to “Columbiana County
Prosecutors Jail – ATTN Warden, Sheriff Brian McLaughlin, Administration
Office.” The next day, a third party resubmitted the two requests for Brown by
emailing them to the sheriff’s office.
       {¶ 6} Brown’s first public-records request listed ten items pertaining to
“Employees[’] names and position[s] held while working at the Columbiana
County Jail during the time period of January 1st, 2017 through July 1st, 2018.”
Brown’s second public-records request listed 15 items pertaining to current “Policy
information on Inmate Intake/Booking and Retention of records,” including
booking of inmates showing signs of intoxication, impairment, injury, or
psychological problems. In both requests, Brown also asked for related records-
retention policies.
                       C. Response of the Sheriff’s Office
       {¶ 7} Scherry Wilson, an administrative assistant in the sheriff’s office,
attests that she sent Brown a letter on September 13, 2013, in which she “fully and
completely responded to Brown’s records requests.” In response to Brown’s first
request, the sheriff’s office provided only two records: an employee-information
sheet for Sergeant Deputy Sheriff Hartley Malone, the contract monitor, and a
position description for the position of sergeant deputy sheriff.
       {¶ 8} In response to both of Brown’s records requests, Wilson’s letter
asserted that the sheriff’s office had already provided the related records-retention
schedules and that the office did not have any records responsive to the other items
listed in the requests, because the records are created, kept, and maintained by
Correctional Solutions Group, and—according to Wilson—the sheriff’s office does
not have access to them.




                                          3
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




                               D. Mandamus Action
        {¶ 9} On September 25, 2023, Brown filed his complaint in this case. The
sheriff’s office filed an answer and a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing
that Brown’s mandamus claim was moot because the sheriff’s office had provided
all the responsive records in its possession and that Brown should request the other
records from Correctional Solutions Group.
        {¶ 10} On December 27, 2023, we denied respondents’ motion for
judgment on the pleadings and granted an alternative writ, setting a schedule for
the submission of evidence and briefs. 

. Both parties filed merit
briefs, but only the sheriff’s office filed evidence.
                                   II. ANALYSIS
           A. Columbiana County Jail Is Not a Proper Respondent
        {¶ 11} Brown names the Columbiana County Jail as a respondent and
argues that it failed to reply to his requests even though it is the custodian of the
public records he requested. The Columbiana County Jail, however, is not a proper
respondent in this case.
        {¶ 12} Although the sheriff’s office is a public office as that term is defined
in R.C. 149.011(A), the Columbiana County Jail itself is merely a building, not a
person or office capable of being sued or responsible for public records. See R.C.
149.011(A); see also Blair v. Hamilton Cty. Justice’s Ctr., 

, *2
(S.D.Ohio Apr. 19, 2022) (a correctional facility is not a person or legal entity that
can be sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983). Brown seems to argue that by naming the jail
as a respondent, he has filed this case against the current private jail administrator,
Correctional Solutions Group, in addition to the public offices.            However,
S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.02(A)(1) requires that respondents be named and their proper
service addresses be provided. Brown neither named nor served as a respondent
Correctional Solutions Group. Accordingly, it is not a respondent in this action.




                                           4
                                 January Term, 2024




        {¶ 13} The only respondents in this case are Sheriff Brian McLaughlin and
the Corrections Division of the Columbiana County Sheriff’s Office.
  B. The Sheriff’s Office Has a Legal Duty to Obtain and Disclose Records
        {¶ 14} Mandamus is an 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, 

, ¶ 6; R.C.
149.43(C)(1)(b). To obtain the writ, “the requester must prove by clear and
convincing evidence a clear legal right to the record and a corresponding clear legal
duty on the part of the respondent to provide it.” State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer,

.
        {¶ 15} In his brief, Brown asserts that the sheriff’s office was incorrect in
responding that they do not have access to the records, because R.C. 9.06(B)(9)
requires them to have access through the contract monitor.               Further, R.C.
9.06(B)(16) requires contracts with private jail administrators to include a provision
requiring maintenance of all documents and records relevant to the facility in the
same manner required for records of the public entity.
        {¶ 16} The sheriff’s office does not dispute that Brown has a clear legal
right to the requested records, but the sheriff’s office argues that it has fulfilled its
legal duty by providing all the responsive records in its possession not previously
produced and by directing Brown to obtain the remaining records from Correctional
Solutions Group. The sheriff’s office argues that the private jail administrators are
the functional equivalent of a public agency, that the records in their possession are
public records, and that the private jail administrators themselves therefore have
the duty to disclose the records.
                1. The private jail administrators are quasi-agents
        {¶ 17} The sheriff’s office is incorrect in suggesting that its legal duty to
disclose the requested records ceases once the private jail administrators have
assumed a legal obligation to maintain and disclose the records. Whether the



                                           5
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




private entities also have a duty to disclose the public records they hold is irrelevant
to the public office’s duty under the quasi-agency test. See State ex rel. Armatas v.
Plain Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 

 (concluding that even
though a private entity may not qualify as a public office, “that does not prevent the
application of the quasi-agency test”). Here, the records requests were directed to
the sheriff’s office. We proceed to apply the quasi-agency test to Brown’s requests
that the sheriff’s office disclose jail-related records.
        {¶ 18} In State ex rel. Mazzaro v. Ferguson, 

 (1990),
this court announced a quasi-agency test, holding that when a public office
contracts with a private entity, the records held by the private entity are public
records if “(1) [the] private entity prepares [the] records in order to carry out a
public office’s responsibilities, (2) the public office is able to monitor the private
entity’s performance, and (3) the public office has access to the records for this
purpose.” Recently, we have recognized that “when a requester has adequately
proved the first prong of the quasi-agency test, the requester has met his burden:
proof of a delegated public duty establishes that the documents relating to the
delegated functions are public records.” 

.
        {¶ 19} In this case, the sheriff’s office delegated the administration of the
jail and the supervision and care of the inmates to the private jail administrators for
the durations of their respective contracts. Brown requested records pertaining to
the names and positions of jail personnel, policies regarding inmate booking, and
record policies and -retention schedules. To the extent that records responsive to
Brown’s requests exist, all those records would have been created to carry out the
delegated public responsibilities.     Indeed, the contracts specifically state that
records relating to the facility and inmates are to be kept in the same manner
required for county records, and the sheriff’s office concedes that the records in the
possession of the private jail administrators are public records. This evidence of a




                                            6
                                January Term, 2024




delegated public duty shows that the requested documents relating to the delegated
function of operating the jail are public records. See 

.
       {¶ 20} The sheriff’s office argues that in cases applying the quasi-agency
test, “the [c]ourt is concerned with the intentional shielding of information and
records.”   However, in Mazzaro, in which we established the quasi-agency test,
there was no such obfuscation, see 

. In this case, clear and convincing
evidence shows that the requested records related to the delegated public duty of
operating the jail are public records. See Armatas, 

.
Therefore, there is a quasi-agency relationship between the sheriff’s office and the
private jail administrators, and the records held by the private jail administrators in
this case are public records.
  2. The sheriff’s office has a duty to obtain and disclose the requested records
       {¶ 21} When the quasi-agency test is satisfied, the public office has a duty
to obtain requested records from the private entity and disclose them to the
requester. See 

 (even though requested record was in possession
of a private entity, it was a public record under township’s jurisdiction and township
“ha[d] a clear legal duty to make it available to [requester]”).
       {¶ 22} Regarding Brown’s first public-records request, which asked for
records from between January 1, 2017, and July 1, 2018, the sheriff’s office denies
that it possesses any responsive records other than the two records that it disclosed.
As required by R.C. 9.06(B)(16), both contracts between the county and the private
jail administrators provide that all documents and records relating to the facility
and inmates shall be maintained in the same manner as required for the records of
the county—i.e., as public records. Regardless of who has the remaining records
responsive to the request—the sheriff’s office or either or both of the private jail
administrators—the sheriff’s office has a clear legal duty to obtain existing
responsive records and disclose them to Brown. See 

. The same
reasoning applies to any public records responsive to Brown’s second public-



                                          7
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




records request. Therefore, Brown is entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering the
sheriff’s office to obtain and disclose any additional responsive public records.
                         C. Limited Writ of Mandamus
       {¶ 23} Because the evidence submitted does not show which entity
currently has public records responsive to Brown’s requests—or even whether
additional responsive records actually exist—we grant a limited writ of mandamus
ordering the sheriff’s office to obtain any responsive public records from the private
jail administrators with which the county contracted (GEO Group and Correctional
Solutions Group) and disclose them to Brown or to certify that no responsive
records exist. See State ex rel. Sultaana v. Mansfield Corr. Inst., 

 (granting limited writ of mandamus ordering records custodian “to produce
[requested] records or to certify that no such records exist” because of factual
questions); accord State ex rel. Mobley v. Powers, 

. We defer
our determination whether Brown is entitled to statutory damages and the amount
of any such damages until the sheriff’s office has complied with the limited writ.
                               III. CONCLUSION
       {¶ 24} For the foregoing reasons, we grant a limited writ of mandamus
ordering the sheriff’s office to either obtain and disclose to Brown the remaining
responsive public records or certify within 21 days that no additional responsive
records exist. We defer our determination whether Brown is entitled to statutory
damages and the amount of any such damages until the sheriff’s office has complied
with the limited writ.
                                                               Limited writ granted.
                               __________________
       Terry Brown, pro se.
       Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., L.P.A., Frank H. Scialdone, and Zachary
W. Anderson, for respondents.
                               __________________



                                          8