concluding that a relator did not comply with the requirements of R.C. 149.43(C)(1) and dismissing a mandamus action following the respondent’s redacted response to a public-records request
How later courts described this case
- concluding that a relator did not comply with the requirements of R.C. 149.43(C)(1) and dismissing a mandamus action following the respondent’s redacted response to a public-records request
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
[Cite as State ex rel. Ames v. W. Geauga Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2025-Ohio-5179.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
GEAUGA COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO ex rel. CASE NO. 2025-G-0016
BRIAN M. AMES,
Relator, Original Action for Writ of Mandamus
- vs -
WEST GEAUGA LOCAL SCHOOL
DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Respondent.
PER CURIAM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: November 17, 2025
Judgment: Petition dismissed
Brian M. Ames, pro se, 2632 Ranfield Road, Mogadore, OH 44260 (Relator).
Matthew John Markling, McGown & Markling Co., L.P.A., 1894 North Cleveland-
Massillon Road, Akron, OH 44333 (For Respondent).
ROBERT J. PATTON, P.J.
{¶1} This matter is before the court on Brian M. Ames’s (“relator”), petition for a
writ of mandamus requesting a judgment requiring West Geauga Local School District
Board of Education (“respondent”) to produce records pursuant to R.C. 149.43. For the
following reasons, this action is dismissed.
Substantive and Procedural History
{¶2} In his petition, relator contends that he made a public records request to
respondent on March 24, 2025. Relator does not dispute that respondent replied to his
request with a redacted response on April 3, 2025. Relator avers that the response failed
to comply with R.C. 149.43 because respondent redacted information subject to
disclosure. Respondent maintains that the redacted information is protected under the
Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”). Relator disagrees. Additionally,
respondent asserts that relator’s petition should be dismissed because he failed to comply
with R.C. 149.43(C)(1), requiring that a petitioner allow three days after serving the public
office with a complaint before commencing a mandamus action.
{¶3} Relator filed his petition with this Court on April 30, 2025. An alternative writ
was issued on May 13, 2025. The following documents were subsequently filed:
July 14, 2025: Respondent’s answer to relator’s petition.
- respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
July 16, 2025: Relator filed in one combined document:
- relator’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings;
- motion for in camera inspection;
- brief in support of motions; and
- brief in opposition to respondent’s motion for judgment on
the pleadings.
July 19, 2025: Respondent filed in three separate documents:
- respondent’s reply memorandum to relator’s memo in
opposition to respondent’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings;
- respondent’s memorandum in opposition to relator’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings; and
- respondent’s memorandum in opposition to relator’s
motion for in camera inspection.
PAGE 2 OF 6
Case No. 2025-G-0016
July 22, 2025: Relator filed in one document:
- relator’s reply in support of cross motion for judgment on
the pleadings; and
- relator’s reply in support for motion for in camera
inspection.
July 22, 2025: Respondent’s motion for oral argument on the
dispositive motions.
- respondent’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply instanter
(which was granted on August 20, 2025).
July 22, 2025: Relator’s opposition to respondent’s motion for leave
to file a sur-reply instanter.
August 4, 2025: Respondent’s motion to consolidate Case Nos.
2025-G-0016 and 2025-G-0029 in both cases.
August 4, 2025: Relator’s opposition to respondent’s motion to
consolidate cases.
August 4, 2025: Respondent’s reply memorandum to memo in
opposition to the motion to consolidate cases.
September 4, 2025: Respondent filed in three separate documents:
- respondent’s notice of supplemental authority;
- respondent’s 2nd notice of supplemental authority; and
- respondent’s 3rd notice of supplemental authority.
October 29, 2025: Respondent filed in three separate documents:
- respondent’s 4th notice of supplemental authority;
- respondent’s 5th notice of supplemental authority; and
- respondent’s 6th notice of supplemental authority.
Disposition
{¶4} Respondent has maintained throughout all filings that relator has failed to
comply with R.C. 149.43(C)(1), which provides:
PAGE 3 OF 6
Case No. 2025-G-0016
If a person allegedly is aggrieved by the failure of a public
office or the person responsible for public records to promptly
prepare a public record and to make it available to the person
for inspection in accordance with division (B) of this section
. . . the person allegedly aggrieved may serve pursuant to
Rule 4 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure a complaint, on a
form prescribed by the clerk of the court of claims, to the public
office or person responsible for public records allegedly
responsible for the alleged failure. Upon receipt of the
complaint of the person allegedly aggrieved, the public office
or person responsible for public records has three business
days to cure or otherwise address the failure alleged in the
complaint. The person allegedly aggrieved shall not file a
complaint with a court or commence a mandamus action
under this section within the three-day period. If the person
fails to file an affirmation pursuant to this division, the suit shall
be dismissed.
(Emphasis added.) R.C. 149.43(C)(1).
{¶5} Pursuant to new legislation effective April 9, 2025, R.C. 149.43(C)(1) now
requires an allegedly aggrieved party to complete additional steps prior to filing a
mandamus action. The statute requires that a petitioner serve the public office with a
complaint and to allow three days to pass before filing an action with the court.
{¶6} Exhibits attached to relator’s petition indicate that respondent was served
by certified mail on April 28, 2025, with relator’s complaint. Relator was required to wait
three days, until May 1, 2025, to file an action with the court. Relator filed his petition for
a writ of mandamus with this court on April 30, 2025. Accordingly, relator did not comply
with the requirements of R.C. 149.43(C)(1), and this action must be dismissed.
PAGE 4 OF 6
Case No. 2025-G-0016
{¶7} For the foregoing reasons, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is hereby
dismissed. All pending motions are overruled as moot.
MATT LYNCH, J.,
SCOTT LYNCH, J.,
concur.
PAGE 5 OF 6
Case No. 2025-G-0016
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the per curiam opinion of this court, it is ordered that
relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is hereby dismissed. All pending motions are
overruled as moot.
Costs to be taxed against relator.
PRESIDING JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON
JUDGE MATT LYNCH,
concurs
JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH,
concurs
THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PAGE 6 OF 6
Case No. 2025-G-0016