State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer
| Decision Date | 27 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 2020-0748,2020-0748 |
| Citation | 165 Ohio St.3d 315,179 N.E.3d 60 |
| Parties | [The STATE EX REL.] GRIFFIN v. SEHLMEYER. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Mark Griffin Sr., Cleveland, pro se.
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Jared S. Yee, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
{¶ 1} In April 2020, relator, Mark Griffin Sr., an inmate at the Toledo Correctional Institution ("TCI"), requested information about the number of staff and inmates in TCI who had been exposed to or who had contracted COVID-19. His request was poorly worded—although he invoked Ohio's Public Records Act, he did not expressly ask for any records. Respondent, Sonrisa Sehlmeyer, the public-records custodian at TCI, responded to Griffin and wrote that he had not made a proper public-records request because he had asked for information, not records. Nevertheless, Sehlmeyer offered to provide a record containing information about staff and inmate COVID-19 testing, if Griffin paid ten cents for a copy of the two-page document. Griffin did not pay the ten cents or say that he wanted that document.
{¶ 2} One week later, Griffin made another request, this time clearly asking for records of prison staff and inmates who had contracted COVID-19. In response, Sehlmeyer stated that the prison had "no public record responsive to [this] request." Griffin now seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the production of the public records he requested. He also asks for an award of statutory damages.
{¶ 3} We grant the writ and award Griffin statutory damages in the amount of $1,000.
{¶ 4} On April 21, 2020, Griffin sent the following request to Sehlmeyer by prison kite:
pursaunt to the ohio public records act 149. 43 b im seeking the actual number of [TCI] staff and inmates that have been exposed to COVID-19. here at [TCI]. please remeber that this is public information according to the C. D. C. and ODRC has in ongoing statutory duty. and obligation to report all persons that have contracted COVID-19 here at [TCI]. please forward me these findings A.S. A. P ..........
Sehlmeyer determined that Griffin was requesting information, not records. She responded to Griffin on April 22, stating:
Mr. Griffin, Your request is seeking information. This is not a proper public record request. If you are requesting the daily status sheet on staff and inmate testing within the department, that is available and is 2 pages. Please send a cash slip for 10 cents. Ms. Sehlmeyer.
{¶ 5} On April 23, Griffin sent Sehlmeyer another kite, stating:
to. wardes assistant.. im responding to your response to my public records request.. its funny how you attempted to tell me abuot COVID-19 TESTING of inmates and staff. well i hvae a serious lung disease SARCOIDOSIS
and i benn requesting to take COVID-19. test and have been refused and have not been seen by midical knowing im on the chronic care list......... but accordind to your response [TCI] AND ODCR is offering tsest. wow.
(Capitalization sic.)
{¶ 6} Sehlmeyer responded to that kite the same day, explaining:
I am not sure what you are referring to. You asked for information and I told you what was available as a public record. The department has been doing tests, the offenders at Marion [Correctional Institution] and [Pickaway Correctional Institution] are all being tested because they live in a dormitory status. If you have a medical condition, have symptoms to be tested, you can reach out to medical. There is a screening form to determine who can be tested. As you are aware copays are waived during this time. Ms. Sehlmeyer.
{¶ 7} Griffin sent Sehlmeyer a third kite on April 28:
im forwarding this public records request to obtain the documented records of STAFF.. AND INMATES.. that have contracted the COVID-19 ..disease here at [TCI] again this is public records according to the CDC and the OHIO PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTOR.. moreover
(Capitalization sic.)
{¶ 8} Sehlmeyer responded to Griffin's third kite on April 28:
Mr. Griffin, we have no public record responsive to your request. Ms. Sehlmeyer, CWA2.
{¶ 9} In his complaint, Griffin asks this court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel Sehlmeyer to provide records that are responsive to his April 28 kite. We issued an alternative writ and ordered the parties to submit evidence and file briefs. 160 Ohio St.3d 1403, 2020-Ohio-4458, 153 N.E.3d 98.
The public-records request
{¶ 10} R.C. 149.43(B)(1) requires a public-records custodian to provide a copy of a public record to a requester "at cost and within a reasonable period of time." A person who is denied access to a public record may seek to compel its production through a mandamus action. R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(b). To prevail on such a claim, 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. Am. Civ. Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs. , 128 Ohio St.3d 256, 2011-Ohio-625, 943 N.E.2d 553, ¶ 22-24 ; State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Deters , 148 Ohio St.3d 595, 2016-Ohio-8195, 71 N.E.3d 1076, ¶ 19.
{¶ 11} Although Griffin's complaint seeks to compel compliance with the request he made on April 28, the parties’ arguments focus mainly on their April 21 and 22 correspondence. The question regarding Griffin's April 21 kite to Sehlmeyer is whether it actually constituted a public-records request under the Public Records Act.
{¶ 12} "Requests 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. It was reasonable for Sehlmeyer to conclude that Griffin's April 21 request was not proper under the Public Records Act. Although Griffin referred to R.C. 149.43 in his April 21 kite, he asked for only data and information—i.e., "the actual number" of staff and inmates who had been exposed to COVID-19 and "information" and "findings" about who had contracted the virus. Griffin did not ask for records on April 21.
{¶ 13} Sehlmeyer argues that on April 22, when she offered Griffin a copy of DRC's daily status sheet on staff and inmate testing for COVID-19, she complied with any obligations she had under the Public Records Act. Sehlmeyer's view is understandable from her perspective, because as she explains in her brief, the daily status sheet would have given Griffin then-current information on the number of inmates and staff who had tested positive for COVID-19 at each prison. But Sehlmeyer did not explain the contents of the daily status sheet when she communicated with Griffin in April 2020, and Griffin's subsequent correspondence suggests that he did not understand that the daily status sheet reported the information he had requested.
{¶ 14} Sehlmeyer nevertheless argues that her offer, and Griffin's failure to accept it, renders this case moot. It is true that a public-records mandamus claim usually becomes moot when the public office provides the requested documents. See State ex rel. Striker v. Smith , 129 Ohio St.3d 168, 2011-Ohio-2878, 950 N.E.2d 952, ¶ 22. And because Sehlmeyer submitted a copy of that document as evidence in this case, Griffin now has a copy of the April 21 daily status sheet. But the production of the April 21 daily status sheet does not resolve the parties’ disagreement about their April 28 correspondence. Sehlmeyer's mootness argument, therefore, is misplaced.
{¶ 15} We must determine whether Griffin has a clear legal right to records—and whether Sehlmeyer has a corresponding clear legal duty provide them—in response to Griffin's April 28 request. The parties have very different views about what Griffin meant on April 28 when he wrote that he was (Capitalization sic.) Griffin contends that it was a request for public records reporting the number of staff and inmates at TCI who had tested positive for COVID-19. But Sehlmeyer argues that it represented his rejection of her offer to provide a copy of the April 21 daily status sheet and a "reiterat[ion]" of his earlier request. She contends that to the extent Griffin was seeking additional records, he was asking for the medical records of staff and inmates, which are not public records. See R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(a).
{¶ 16} Griffin's April 28 message to Sehlmeyer must be read in the context of their other recent communications. See Morgan , 112 Ohio St.3d 33, 2006-Ohio-6365, 857 N.E.2d 1208, at ¶ 33. One week earlier, Sehlmeyer had surmised that the information in the daily status sheet was what Griffin was looking for. When Griffin communicated with Sehlmeyer on April 28, he rephrased his earlier request and expressly asked for records about staff and inmates at TCI who had contracted COVID-19. It was unreasonable for Sehlmeyer to construe Griffin's message simply as a rejection of her previous offer or as another request for only nonpublic medical records. In context, it appears that Griffin was trying again to get information about the number of staff and inmates who had tested positive for COVID-19. Griffin has a clear legal right to records that are responsive to that request.
{¶ 17} The question then, is whether Sehlmeyer has a clear legal duty to provide them to Griffin. Sehlmeyer contends that she satisfied her obligations because Griffin rejected her offer to provide him with a copy of the daily status sheet at cost. But Sehlmeyer's suggestion that she offered to provide records in response to Griffin's April 28 kite is hard to square with her actual response on April 28, which stated without qualification that TCI had "no public record responsive to [his] request." Sehlmeyer also fails to account for the fact that because she never fully...
To continue reading
Request your trial