State ex rel. Mobley v. Bates

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 175 Ohio St.3d 315.]

THE STATE EX REL. MOBLEY v. BATES, PROS. ATTY.

[Cite as State ex rel. Mobley v. Bates, 2024-Ohio-2827.]

Mandamus—Public-records requests—Because public-records custodian provided

requested records, offered to provide records upon prepayment of copying

costs, or averred that requested records do not exist, public office satisfied

its obligations under R.C. 149.43—Requester failed to prove by clear and

convincing evidence that he delivered public-records requests by certified

mail—Writ, statutory damages, and court costs denied.

(No. 2023-1594—Submitted May 7, 2024—Decided July 30, 2024.)

IN MANDAMUS.

__________________

The per curiam opinion below was joined by KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER,

DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, and DETERS, JJ.

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Relator, Alphonso Mobley Jr., filed an original action in mandamus

against respondent, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney Julia Bates (“the

prosecutor” or “the prosecutor’s office”). Mobley seeks the production of public

records and awards of statutory damages and court costs. We deny the writ and

decline to award Mobley statutory damages or court costs.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

{¶ 2} Mobley alleges that on October 30, 2023, the prosecutor received a

public-records request that Mobley had sent to the prosecutor by certified mail. The

record does not contain a copy of the request, but Mobley states that he sought in

the request paper copies of the prosecutor’s (1) “[r]ecords retention schedule,”

(2) “[c]ertified statements for years 2016-2021 pursuant to R.C. 309.16,” and

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

(3) “[c]ashbook[s] for years 2016-2021 pursuant to R.C. 2335.25.” Mobley did not

receive a response from the prosecutor regarding his request prior to filing this

mandamus action.

{¶ 3} Mobley filed this mandamus action on December 14, 2023, and the

prosecutor was served with the complaint on December 19. On January 5, 2024,

the prosecutor’s office sent Mobley a letter. In that letter, the prosecutor’s office

stated that it had no record of having received Mobley’s request but that it was

providing a response to the request described in Mobley’s complaint. In response

to Mobley’s request for the prosecutor’s office’s “[r]ecords retention schedule,” the

prosecutor’s office provided Mobley with a copy of the office’s records-retention

schedule. In response to Mobley’s request for certified statements, the prosecutor’s

office stated that the records responsive to that request might total nearly 10,000

pages and that a paper copy of the records would cost approximately $1,000. The

prosecutor’s office asked Mobley to inform it as to whether he still wanted paper

copies of those records. And in response to Mobley’s request for “[c]ashbook[s],”

the prosecutor’s office stated that it did not have cashbooks for the years requested.

{¶ 4} The prosecutor filed an answer to Mobley’s mandamus complaint,

and this court issued an alternative writ allowing the parties to submit evidence and

ordering them to submit briefs, 2024-Ohio-597. As part of its evidence, the

prosecutor’s office submitted an affidavit of an assistant prosecutor. The assistant

prosecutor avers that all public-records requests made to the prosecutor’s office are

forwarded to him. He avers that he never received the public-records request at

issue in this case and that the prosecutor’s office has no record of having received

it. Mobley submitted as evidence a certified-mail return receipt for a mailing

addressed to the prosecutor’s office that was delivered and signed for on

October 30, 2023. The signature of the person who accepted the delivery is

illegible. Mobley avers that this receipt was for the mailing of his public-records

2

January Term, 2024

request. Mobley has not submitted a copy of the request or an envelope with a

tracking number matching the tracking number on the receipt.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. Writ of mandamus

{¶ 5} “[U]pon request by any person, a public office or person responsible

for public records shall make copies of the requested public record available to the

requester at cost and within a reasonable period of time.” R.C. 149.43(B)(1).

Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel compliance with R.C. 149.43(B).

R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(b). To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Mobley must prove,

by clear and convincing evidence, that he has a clear legal right to the relief sought

and that the prosecutor has a clear legal duty to provide that relief. State ex rel.

Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 2015-Ohio-974, ¶ 10.

{¶ 6} Mobley argues that the prosecutor has not properly responded to his

requests for certified statements and cashbooks and requests a writ of mandamus

ordering the production of those records. We deny the writ. The prosecutor’s office

avers that it never received Mobley’s public-records request. But even if the

prosecutor received the request and failed to respond to it by the time Mobley filed

this action, the prosecutor has since properly responded to the request.

{¶ 7} Mobley states that in his request for certified statements, he requested

“[c]ertified statements for years 2016-2021 pursuant to R.C. 309.16.” Former

R.C. 309.16, Am.Sub.S.B. No. 98, 138 Ohio Laws, Part I, 683, which has been

repealed, required prosecutors to file annual statements regarding criminal

prosecutions with the applicable board of county commissioners and, with respect

to arson offenses, with the state fire marshal. In its January 5, 2024 letter to Mobley

regarding his public-records request, the prosecutor’s office told Mobley that paper

copies of the statements to the board of county commissioners would cost

approximately $1,000 and asked Mobley to advise the office whether he wanted to

proceed with the request. Mobley did not respond to that instruction.

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 8} A public office may charge for copies of public records at cost. See

R.C. 149.43(B)(6). In his brief, Mobley suggests that he requested statements sent

to the state fire marshal in addition to statements sent to the board of county

commissioners and that the prosecutor did not provide the statements that were sent

to the state fire marshal or an estimate of the cost to provide them. The prosecutor

clarifies in her brief, however, that the same statements were sent to both the board

of county commissioners and the state fire marshal. Because the prosecutor

properly required payment of the copying costs before providing the statements, we

deny the writ as to the request for certified statements.

{¶ 9} Mobley states that in his request for cashbooks, he sought

“[c]ashbook[s] for years 2016-2021 pursuant to R.C. 2335.25.” R.C. 2335.25

requires prosecutors to keep a cashbook containing a record of all moneys that they

collect or receive and that the cashbook “shall be a public record of the office.” The

prosecutor’s office told Mobley—and it avers here—that it does not have any

cashbooks or other records responsive to the request. Mobley argues that the

prosecutor’s office’s assertion that it does not have responsive records is

contradicted by the office’s records-retention schedule, which contains a records

schedule titled “Cash Books & Journals” and similarly titled schedules. But the

existence of a particular records schedule at a public office does not necessarily

mean that the public office has records encompassed by that schedule. And here,

the prosecutor denies having any records responsive to Mobley’s request for

cashbooks. Mobley has the burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that

the records he requested exist. See State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden, 2019-Ohio-1216,

¶ 8. He has not done so, and the prosecutor has “no duty to create or provide access

to nonexistent records,” State ex rel. Lanham v. Smith, 2007-Ohio-609, ¶ 15.

Therefore, we deny the writ as to the request for cashbooks.

4

January Term, 2024

{¶ 10} Because the prosecutor has now either provided the requested

records, offered to provide Mobley with the records upon prepayment of the

copying costs, or averred that the records do not exist, we deny the writ.

B. Statutory damages and court costs

{¶ 11} “Statutory damages shall be awarded if a requester of public records

transmits a written request to a public office by hand delivery, electronic

submission, or certified mail and the public office or person responsible for public

records fails to comply with its obligations under R.C. 149.43(B).” State ex rel.

Atakpu v. Shuler, 2023-Ohio-2266, ¶ 13; accord R.C. 149.43(C)(2).

{¶ 12} Mobley argues that he is entitled to statutory damages because the

prosecutor did not respond to his public-records request within a reasonable time.

A public office shall provide copies of a requested public record “within a

reasonable period of time.” R.C. 149.43(B)(1). Mobley alleges that the prosecutor

received his public-records request on October 30, 2023, and that the prosecutor

did not respond to the request until January 5, 2024—67 days later.

{¶ 13} The prosecutor’s office, however, avers that it never received the

public-records request. As evidence that he had sent the request to the prosecutor’s

office by certified mail, Mobley submitted a copy of a certified-mail return receipt

that may have been signed for by someone from the prosecutor’s office on

October 30 and his own affidavit averring that he sent the request by certified mail.

Mobley, however, did not submit a copy of the public-records request. He also did

not submit a copy of the envelope that the records request was mailed in. Because

he did not submit a copy of the envelope, we cannot confirm that the certified-mail

return receipt contains the same tracking number as that on the envelope.

{¶ 14} “[W]hen the evidence on the method-of-delivery of a public-records

request consists of contradictory affidavits or is inconclusive, the requester has not

satisfied his burden under R.C. 149.43(C)(2).” State ex rel. Ware v. Galonski,

2024-Ohio-1064, ¶ 22; see also State ex rel. Ware v. Giavasis, 2020-Ohio-5453,

5

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

¶ 32 (holding that when the evidence concerning delivery of a public-records

request is evenly balanced, the requester has not satisfied the heightened burden of

proof necessary for an award of statutory damages). Here, Mobley submitted as

evidence a certified-mail return receipt. But other than his own affidavit, which the

prosecutor disputes, Mobley has submitted no evidence linking the receipt to a

public-records request.

{¶ 15} This court recently addressed a similar situation in Galonski. In that

case, the relator averred that he had sent a public-records request by certified mail

and submitted a certified-mail return receipt as evidence, but the respondent denied

ever receiving the request. Galonski at ¶ 12, 16-17. This court determined that the

relator had not proved by clear and convincing evidence that he had delivered the

request by certified mail. Id. at ¶ 22. To be sure, in Galonksi, this court cited

another case in which a public office had denied receiving public-records requests

from the relator in Galonski. Id. at ¶ 21, citing Giavasis at ¶ 32-34. But in

Galonksi, the relator also submitted as evidence a copy of the public-records

request, see id. at ¶ 32 (Kennedy, C.J., dissenting), which Mobley has not done

here. We conclude that Mobley, having provided even less evidence than that

provided by the relator in Galonksi, has not proved by clear and convincing

evidence that he transmitted his public-records request by certified mail. And

because he has not done so, we decline to award statutory damages.

{¶ 16} Mobley also requests an award of court costs. Court costs shall be

awarded if “the court orders the public office or the person responsible for the

public record to comply with [R.C. 149.43(B)].” R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(a)(i). Because

we deny the writ, we also decline to award court costs. In addition, Mobley filed

an affidavit of indigency, so he has not incurred court costs.

III. CONCLUSION

{¶ 17} Because the prosecutor’s office has now either provided the records

requested by Mobley, offered to provide Mobley with the records upon prepayment

6

January Term, 2024

of the copying costs, or averred that the records do not exist, we deny Mobley’s

request for a writ of mandamus. We also decline to award Mobley statutory

damages or court costs.

Writ denied.

_________________

Alphonso Mobley Jr., pro se.

Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and John A. Borell,

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.

_________________

7