Ware v. Mansfield Correctional Institution, 011119 OHCOC, 2018-01386PQ
| Opinion Judge | JEFFERY W. CLARK, SPECIAL MASTER |
| Party Name | KIMANI E. WARE Requester v. MANSFIELD CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION Respondent |
| Case Date | January 11, 2019 |
| Court | Ohio Court of Claims |
Sent to S.C. Reporter 1/11/19
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JEFFERY W. CLARK, SPECIAL MASTER
{¶1} On July 18, 2018, requester Kimani Ware filed a complaint under R.C. 2743.75 alleging denial of access to public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B). Ware alleges that he sent letters to the Warden's Assistant Office of respondent Mansfield Correctional Institution (ManCI) on April 30, 2018, and again on June 18, 2018, requesting the following records: A copy of M.C.I. (Mansfield) Library Schedule
A copy of M.C.I. (Mansfield) Religious Services Scheduling Calendar
A copy of M.C.I. (Mansfield) Library Advisory Committee Forms from January 1st, 2015 through January 1st, 2018
A copy of M.C.I. (Mansfield) Monthly Library Reports from December 5th, 2017 through January 5th, 2018
A copy of M.C.I. (Mansfield) Library Procedure Manual/Operating Manual
(Complaint at 4-5.) Ware asserts that he did not receive the requested records, did not receive a written response from ManCI, and did not receive an explanation for denial of the requests. Ware seeks an order compelling ManCI to produce certification of its compliance with training in public records law pursuant to R.C. 149.43(E)(1), and for production of the requested records. Ware declined the court's mediation services in this action.
{¶2} On December 7, 2018, ManCI filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment (Response). As grounds, ManCI asserts that Ware did not provide affirmative evidence that he had actually mailed the alleged requests, and that ManCI rendered the claims moot after the filing of the complaint by providing copies of all requested records.
{¶3} Ohio's Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, provides a remedy for production of records under R.C. 2743.75 if the court of claims determines that a public office has denied access to public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B). The policy underlying the Act is that "open government serves the public interest and our democratic system." State ex rel. Dann v. Taft, 109 Ohio St.3d 364, 2006-Ohio-1825, 848 N.E.2d 472, ¶ 20. Therefore, the Act is construed liberally in favor of broad access, and any doubt is resolved in favor of disclosure of public records. State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391, 2008-Ohio-4788, 894 N.E.2d 686, ¶ 13. Claims under R.C. 2743.75 are determined using the standard of clear and convincing evidence. Hurt v. Liberty Twp., 5th Dist. Delaware No. 17CAI050031, 2017-Ohio-7820, ¶ 27-30.
Motion to Dismiss
{¶4} In construing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), the court must presume that all factual allegations of the complaint are true and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190, 192, 532 N.E.2d 753 (1988). Then, before the court may dismiss the complaint, it must appear beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to recovery. O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 245, 327 N.E.2d 753 (1975).
{¶5} Ware attested by affidavit that he "mailed a public records request on April 30th, 2018 to the Warden's Assistant at Mansfield Correctional Institution." (Complaint at 3.) The request letter of that date bears the correct street address for ManCI. (Id. at 4.) There is no requirement in...
To continue reading
Request your trial