State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer, 2020-1447
| Citation | 2021 Ohio 3624 |
| Decision Date | 12 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2020-1447 |
| Parties | [The State ex rel.] Griffin v. Sehlmeyer. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
Submitted August 3, 2021
In Mandamus.
Mark Griffin Sr., pro se.
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Jared S. Yee and Mark W. Altier Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
{¶ 1} Relator, Mark Griffin Sr., an inmate at the Toledo Correctional Institution ("TCI"), seeks a writ of mandamus to compel respondent, Sonrisa Sehlmeyer, the public-records custodian at TCI, to provide the names of five inmates who allegedly were murdered at TCI between 2012 and 2014. We deny the writ because Griffin has not shown that he has requested an existing record.
{¶ 2} On September 24, 2020, Griffin sent Sehlmeyer a public-records request seeking "the 'names only' of the five (5) [TCI], offenders that were 'murdered' by other level three (3) security offenders, while under the custody of former TCI, warden, Mr. Sheldon." The request further stated that "all 'murders' in the state of Ohio, are public records and their deaths were documented and reported by [the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("DRC")], and or TCI." Sehlmeyer responded to Griffin on October 8, stating:
{¶ 3} On November 30, Griffin filed this original action seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Sehlmeyer to produce records in response to his request. He alleged that a DRC policy requires the creation of incident reports concerning any murders that occur within a prison. We granted an alternative writ. 162 Ohio St.3d 1425, 2021-Ohio-1202, 166 N.E.3d 23. The parties have submitted evidence, and the case has been fully briefed.
{¶ 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, 108 Ohio St.3d 288, 2006-Ohio-903, 843 N.E.2d 174, ¶ 6. But to be entitled to a writ of mandamus Griffin must show by clear and convincing evidence that he has requested a record that exists and is maintained by TCI. State ex rel. Gooden v. Kagel, 138 Ohio St.3d 343 2014-Ohio-869, 6 N.E.3d 1170, ¶ 8. Sehlmeyer did not have a duty "to create or provide access to nonexistent records." State ex rel. Lanham v. Smith, 112 Ohio St.3d 527, 2007-Ohio-609, 861 N.E.2d 530, ¶ 15.
{¶ 5} Griffin asked Sehlmeyer to provide him with "the names only" of five inmates who allegedly had been murdered at TCI. Sehlmeyer construed this as a request for information, and she told Griffin that no record listing that information exists. Griffin supports his claim with evidence of part of a DRC policy that appears to require the creation of a written report in the event of a significant incident-such as a murder-within a prison. But Griffin did not ask for incident reports; he asked for a list of names. In fact, he confirms the nature of his request in his filings in this case by suggesting that Sehlmeyer has a duty to "review" incident reports and compile the requested "information."
{¶ 6} We deny Griffin's request for a writ of mandamus because "[r]equests for information and requests that require the records custodian to create a new record by searching for selected information are improper requests under R.C. 149.43." State ex rel. Morgan v. New Lexington, 112 Ohio St 3d 33, 2006-Ohio-6365, 857 N.E.2d 1208, ¶ 30.
Writ denied.
Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Stewart, J.
{¶ 7} The request by relator, Mark Griffin Sr., is a simple one. He seeks the "names only" of five inmates allegedly murdered in the prison, and he indicates that those names must have been included on incident reports regarding the murders. Respondent, Sonrisa Sehlmeyer, does not appear to dispute that incident reports regarding each of the five inmates...
To continue reading
Request your trial