State, ex rel. Fant v. Mengel
| Decision Date | 11 December 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-1059,91-1059 |
| Parties | The STATE, ex rel. FANT, Appellant, v. MENGEL, Clerk, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
In a complaint filed in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, Henry J. Fant, relator-appellant, sought a writ of mandamus to compel disclosure of public records under R.C. 149.43. Fant sought to obtain from respondents-appellees, Marcia J. Mengel, Clerk, Supreme Court of Ohio, and M.K. Rinehart, the court's Fiscal Officer, copies of an employment application and performance evaluations of Richard R. Gojdics, Deputy Clerk of the Supreme Court. The court of appeals, granting summary judgment for appellees, found that the documents sought by relator do not exist. Respondents had furnished other documents sought by relator, such as Gojdics's resume, the basis on which Gojdics was hired. The court of appeals also denied relator's motion to assess costs against respondents.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Henry J. Fant, pro se.
Lee I. Fisher, Atty. Gen. and Shawn H. Nau, Columbus, for appellees.
Before mandamus can issue, relator must establish he has a clear legal right to the relief requested. State, ex rel. Fant, v. Sykes (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 90, 28 OBR 185, 502 N.E.2d 597. The Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, does not require that a public office create new documents to meet a requester's demand. State, ex rel. Scanlon, v. Deters (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 376, 544 N.E.2d 680. Accordingly, the court of appeals correctly granted appellees' motion for summary judgment.
The court of appeals also correctly denied appellant's motion to assess costs since the complaint lacked any merit. Also, pro se litigants are not entitled to attorney fees under R.C. 149.43. See Fant v. Bd. of Trustees, Regional Transit Auth. (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 72, 552 N.E.2d 639.
The judgment of the court of appeals is hereby affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Thomas v. Ohio State Univ.
...this court has consistently held that pro se litigants are not entitled to attorney fees under R.C. 149.43. State ex rel. Fant v. Mengel (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 197, 580 N.E.2d 1085; Fant v. Bd. of Trustees, Regional Transit Auth. (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 72, 552 N.E.2d 639. Thus, Thomas' reques......
-
State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland
...public records claims against the respondents, except Tekancic and Denihan, are without merit. See State ex rel. Fant v. Mengel (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 197, 198, 580 N.E.2d 1085, 1086 ("The Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, does not require that a public office create new documents to meet a r......
-
State ex rel. Nix v. Cleveland
...R.C. 149.43 does not require that a public office create new documents to meet a demand for records. State ex rel. Fant v. Mengel (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 197, 198, 580 N.E.2d 1085, 1086. Having held that relators are not entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel access to most of the requested......
-
State Of Ohio v. City Of Cleveland
...State ex rel. Alben v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 76 Ohio St.3d 133, 1996-Ohio-120, 666 N.E.2d 1119; State ex rel. Fant v. Mengel (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 197, 580 N.E.2d 1088; State ex rel. Fant v. Sykes (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 90, 502 N.E.2d 597. Accordingly, we grant the City's motion for summ......