The opinion
[Cite as Brown-Austin v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility, 2026-Ohio-1715.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
YUSUF Y. BROWN-AUSTIN Case No. 2025-00781PQ
Requester Special Master Adam Z. Morris
v. SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY
Respondent
{¶1} This case is before the special master, on remand from the court, for a
supplemental report and recommendation related to requester’s February 2, 2026 motion
for contempt and respondent’s satisfaction of the November 18, 2025 report and
recommendation and subsequent December 18, 2025 decision and entry. Upon review,
the special master recommends that the court: (1) find respondent satisfied the court’s
December 18, 2025 decision and entry ordering respondent to “produce copies of the
records responsive to the portions of the July 7, 2025, described in the R&R and appendix
thereof;” (2) find respondent satisfied the court’s December 18, 2025 decision and entry
ordering respondent to “produce records responsive to the Security Level Review
Request subject to redactions supported by law including redactions supported by
exemptions found in R.C. 5120.21(A)-(D);” (3) find respondent failed to satisfy the court’s
December 18, 2025 decision and entry ordering respondent to “reimburse [requester] for
his filing fee[;]” (4) conclude that requester’s February 2, 2026 motion for contempt is
moot as it relates to requester’s public record requests, as lawfully ordered in the
December 18, 2025 decision and entry (requester’s February 2, 2026 motion for contempt
is DENIED as moot); and (5) conclude by clear and convincing evidence that respondent
is in contempt as it relates to the reimbursement of requester’s filing fee, as lawfully
ordered in the December 18, 2025 decision and entry (requester’s February 2, 2026
motion for contempt is GRANTED), or provide respondent a date certain to preemptively
Case No. 2025-00781PQ -2- SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMM.
purge any possible finding of contempt related to the reimbursement of requester’s filing
fee, which would then render requester’s entire February 2, 2026 motion for contempt
moot.
I. Background.
{¶2} Requester, Yusuf Brown-Austin, is an inmate in the custody and control of
respondent at its Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF). This case is remanded to
the special master on requester’s February 2, 2026 motion for contempt after full briefing
on requester’s underlying public records requests, which resulted in a November 18, 2025
report and recommendation and subsequent December 18, 2025 decision and entry.
(March 9, 2026 entry; March 12, 2026 entry appointing special master). Requester’s
February 2, 2026 motion for contempt had been fully briefed before this case was returned
to the special master.
{¶3} The special master’s November 18, 2025 report and recommendation
recommended that the court:
A. Order the respondent to produce copies of the records responsive to the
second component of requester’s July 7, 2025, records request subject
only to the redactions listed in the appendix to this report and
recommendation;
B. Order respondent to produce the records responsive to requester’s July
24, 2025, records request subject to redactions supported by law;
C. Order respondent to pay requester’s filing fee;
D. Order respondent to pay the balance of the costs of this case; and
E. Deny all other relief.
(November 18, 2025 report and recommendation, p. 12). After overruling respondent’s
objections, the court issued a December 18, 2025 decision and entry ordering:
(1) SOCF to produce copies of the records responsive to the portions of
the July 7, 2025, described in the R&R and appendix thereof;
(2) SOCF to produce records responsive to the Security Level Review
Request subject to redactions supported by law including redactions
supported by exemptions found in R.C. 5120.21(A)-(D); and
(3) SOCF to reimburse Brown-Austin for his filing fee.
Case No. 2025-00781PQ -3- SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMM.
(December 18, 2025 decision and entry, p. 6).
{¶4} On March 16, 2026 and April 17, 2026, the special master issued orders for
additional information and evidence from the parties regarding requester’s February 2,
2026 motion for contempt and respondent’s satisfaction of the November 18, 2025 report
and recommendation and subsequent December 18, 2025 decision and entry. (March
16, 2026 order; April 17, 2026 order).
{¶5} On March 30, 2026 and April 7, 2026, respondent filed submissions of records
in compliance with the special master’s March 16, 2026 order.1 On April 8, 2026,
respondent filed its response in satisfaction of requirements related to the public records
requested. On April 22, 2026, respondent filed its purported response in satisfaction of
requirements related to requester’s filing fee.
{¶6} On April 24, 2026, requester filed an untimely reply in opposition to
respondent’s response in satisfaction, which shall not be considered. (March 16, 2026
order, p. 4).
II. Requester’s February 2, 2026 Motion for Contempt
{¶7} Requester’s February 2, 2026 motion for contempt specifically alleges two
violations of the court’s December 18, 2025 decision and entry: (1) respondent failed to
produce copies of the records responsive to the portions of the July 7, 2025, described in
the R&R and appendix thereof (Email Records) and (2) respondent failed to produce
records responsive to the Security Level Review Request subject to redactions supported
by law including redactions supported by exemptions found in R.C. 5120.21(A)-(D)
(Security Level Records). However, for sake of completeness, the totality of the briefing
on requester’s February 2, 2026 motion for contempt also provides that (3) respondent
failed to reimburse requester for his $25.00 filing fee.
III. Analysis
{¶8} A party invoking R.C. 2743.75 must “prove facts showing that the requester
sought an identifiable public record pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and that the public
1 On April 2, 2026, the special master granted requester’s motion for leave to file amended evidence
related to its March 30, 2026 filing. (April 2, 2026 order).
Case No. 2025-00781PQ -4- SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMM.
office or records custodian did not make the record available.” (Emphasis added.) Welsh-
Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 2020-Ohio-5371, ¶ 33.
{¶9} “In general, the provision of requested records to a [requester] in a public-
records . . . case renders the . . . claim moot.” State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Dupuis,
2002-Ohio-7041, ¶ 8. A public records case can be mooted by the respondent producing
the responsive records during the course of the litigation. State ex rel. Striker v. Smith,
2011-Ohio-2878, ¶ 17-18, 22.
A. Email Records.
{¶10} The December 18, 2025 decision and entry ordered respondent to “produce
copies of the records responsive to the portions of the July 7, 2025, described in the R&R
and appendix thereof.” (December 18, 2025 decision and entry, p. 6). In the report and
recommendation, reviewing the October 2, 2025 Responsive Records previously
provided to requester, the special master recommended that respondent “produce copies
of the records previously produced without any redactions other than those made to
Responsive Records, pp. SOCF (B)(1) 09, 014, 015, 017, 018, 020, 021.” (November 18,
2025 report and recommendation, p. 7, 12, appendix).
{¶11} Upon review, on March 30, 2026, respondent filed an updated Responsive
Records document, which included the ordered records without such redactions, as well
as a February 12, 2026 delivery letter to requester enclosing those ordered records, which
requester signed for on February 13, 2026. On April 8, 2026, respondent confirmed its
satisfaction of this part of the December 18, 2025 decision and entry orders by affidavit
evidence, again attaching and certifying the delivery letter.
{¶12} The special master therefore recommends that the court find respondent
satisfied the court’s December 18, 2025 decision and entry ordering respondent to
“produce copies of the records responsive to the portions of the July 7, 2025, described
in the R&R and appendix thereof[.]”
B. Security Level Records.
{¶13} The December 18, 2025 decision and entry ordered respondent to “produce
records responsive to the Security Level Review Request subject to redactions supported
by law including redactions supported by exemptions found in R.C. 5120.21(A)-(D)[.]”
(December 18, 2025 decision and entry, p. 6). Respondent did not produce any Security
Case No. 2025-00781PQ -5- SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMM.
Level Records for the special master to review prior to the issuance of the November 18,
2025 report and recommendation.
{¶14} Upon review, on March 30, 2026, respondent filed Responsive Records
documents, which included the ordered Security Level Records in a redacted format that
was provided to requester, the unredacted versions under seal, and an index indicating
the basis for each individual exemption from production. Respondent also filed a
February 11, 2026 delivery letter and March 30, 2026 delivery letter to requester
enclosing those Security Level Records in a redacted format, which requester signed for
on February 11, 2026 and March 31, 2026, respectively. On April 8, 2026, respondent
confirmed its satisfaction of this part of the December 18, 2025 decision and entry by
affidavit evidence, again attaching and certifying the delivery letters.
{¶15} However, because the special master did not review the Security Level
Records prior to the issuance of the November 18, 2025 report and recommendation, the
special master shall make a determination whether the redactions were proper and
subsequently, whether the respondent satisfied the court’s December 18, 2025 decision
and entry.
{¶16} Respondent bases its redactions of the Security Level Records on R.C.
5120.21(D)(6) as well as case law limiting production of respondent’s records to inmates,
such as requester.
{¶17} “R.C. 5120.21(D) requires DRC and its institutions to keep seven categories
of confidential records.” State ex rel. Mobley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2022-Ohio-
1765, ¶ 21, citing R.C. 5120.21(D). R.C. 5120.21(D)(6) likely “contain[s] specific
information about inmates,” and “[t]hough these records are confidential, DRC may
consent to their release.” Id. R.C. 5120.21(D)(6) states that “[n]otwithstanding any other
law of this state of the United States to the contrary, the department and the officers of its
institutions shall keep confidential and accessible only to its employes, except by the
consent of the department or the order of a judge of a court of record, . . . Information and
data of any kind or medium pertaining to groups that pose a security threat[.]” Requester
cites its internal policy related to the Security Level Records that requester seeks, 53-
CLS-10 “Level E (ERH) Security Reviews,” which states that:
Case No. 2025-00781PQ -6- SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMM.
It is the policy of the ODRC to limit the use of extended restrictive housing
(ERH) to only those incarcerated persons who pose the greatest threat to
the safety and security of a correctional facility and cannot be managed
safely in general population. . . . and is reserved for those whose violent,
disruptive, predatory, riotous, or other serious misbehavior poses a serious
threat to other incarcerated persons, staff, the orderly operation of the
institution, or the general public.
Ultimately, inmates can be precluded from possessing public records that “trumps the
prison’s discretion to ‘maintain institutional security.’” (Internal citations omitted.) State
ex rel. Cook v. Magee, 2026-Ohio-1106, ¶ 12. Adm.Code 5120-9-19(C) further excludes
inmates from possessing printed records “if it is deemed to be detrimental to, or to pose
a threat to the rehabilitation of inmates; the security of the institution; or, the good order
or discipline of the institution.” And inmates are limited to “records of inmates” under
5120.21(F) concerning themselves rather than other inmates. See State ex rel. McCarley
v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and Corr., 2022-Ohio-3397, ¶ 12 (10th Dist.).
{¶18} If a redaction is based on an exemption from public record status the public
office must prove the propriety of applying the exemption. A public office asserting an
exemption must “prove facts clearly establishing the applicability of the exemption.”
(Internal punctuation omitted.) Welsh-Huggins, 2020-Ohio-5371, at ¶ 27, 35, 54. It “does
not meet this burden if it has not proven that the requested records fall squarely within
the exception,” and the courts “resolve any doubt in favor of disclosure.” Id. at ¶ 27, 50,
63. The public office must produce extrinsic evidence if the applicability of the exemption
is “not obviously apparent and manifest just from the content of the record itself[.]” Id. at
¶ 30, 35, 50, 53. “Unsupported conclusory statements in an affidavit are insufficient.” Id.
at ¶ 35.
{¶19} Upon review, comparing respondent’s redacted Security Level Records
provided to requester with the unredacted Security Level Records filed under seal,
respondent appropriately redacted the provided records consistent with R.C.
5120.21(D)(6) and applicable case law.
{¶20} The special master therefore recommends that the court find respondent
satisfied the court’s December 18, 2025 decision and entry ordering respondent to
Case No. 2025-00781PQ -7- SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMM.
“produce records responsive to the Security Level Review Request subject to redactions
supported by law including redactions supported by exemptions found in R.C.
5120.21(A)-(D)[.]”
C. Filing Fee
{¶21} The December 18, 2025 decision and entry ordered respondent to
“reimburse [requester] for his filing fee.” The filing fee at issue is $25.00.
{¶22} Upon review, respondent states in its February 13, 2026 response in
opposition to requester’s February 2, 2026 motion for contempt that “[r]eimbursement of
Requester’s filing fee has been submitted and is currently being processed and should
be deposited in Requester’s inmate account within a reasonable period of time.”
(February 13, 2026 response in opposition to motion for contempt). Moreover, on April
22, 2026, respondent confirmed that the filing fee has yet to be reimbursed. (April 22,
2026 response in satisfaction to the April 17, 2026 order, Affidavit of Kristen DeVenny ¶
6 (“Requester has not been reimbursed as of April 22, 2026; however, the reimbursement
request is in action and will be made available to Requester as soon as the request has
been processed by the appropriate staff.”))
{¶23} The special master therefore recommends that the court find respondent
failed to satisfy the court’s December 18, 2025 decision and entry ordering respondent to
“reimburse [requester] for his filing fee.”
D. Requester’s February 2, 2026 Motion for Contempt
{¶24} “‘Contempt of court is defined as disobedience of an order of a court.’”
Highland Square Mgmt., Inc. v. Willis & Linnen Co., L.P.A., 2003-Ohio-2630, ¶ 10 (9th
Dist.), quoting Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk, 27 Ohio St.2d 55 (1971), paragraph one
of the syllabus. “Contempt is classified as direct or indirect depending on where the
contempt occurs.” Tassone v. Tassone, 2020-Ohio-3151, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.). “Direct
contempt occurs in the presence of the court in its judicial function.” Id. “Indirect contempt
involves behavior outside the presence of the court that demonstrates lack of respect for
the court or for the court’s orders.” Id.
{¶25} Furthermore, “[c]ontempt may be classified as either civil or criminal,
depending on the character and purpose of the contempt sanctions.” State v. T.F., 2019-
Ohio-1039, ¶ 11 (9th Dist.). “Civil contempt sanctions are designed for remedial or
Case No. 2025-00781PQ -8- SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMM.
coercive purposes and are often employed to compel obedience to a court order.” State
ex. rel. Corn v. Russo, 90 Ohio St.3d 551, 555 (2001). “Criminal contempt sanctions,
however, are punitive in nature and are designed to vindicate the authority of the court.”
Id. “Thus, civil contempts are characterized as violations against the party for whose
benefit the order was made, whereas criminal contempts are most often described as
offenses against the dignity or process of the court.” Id.
{¶26} “To establish civil contempt, the moving party must ‘“establish a valid court
order, knowledge of the order by the defendant, and a violation of the order.”’” In re S.S.,
2023-Ohio-245, ¶ 12 (9th Dist.), quoting Henry v. Henry, 2015-Ohio-4350, ¶ 12 (9th Dist.),
quoting State v. Komadina, 2004-Ohio-4962, ¶ 11 (9th Dist.). “In civil contempt
proceedings, a finding of contempt must be premised on clear and convincing evidence.”
Zemla v. Zemla, 2012-Ohio-2829, ¶ 11 (9th Dist.). “The Supreme Court of Ohio has
defined clear and convincing evidence as ‘[t]he measure or degree of proof that will
produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations
sought to be established. It is intermediate, being more than a mere preponderance, but
not to the extent of such certainty as required beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal
cases. It does not mean clear and unequivocal.’” Pflaum v. Summit Cty. Animal Control,
2017-Ohio-4166, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.), quoting In re Estate of Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d 101, 104
(1986).
The purpose of sanctions in a case of civil contempt is to compel the
contemnor to comply with the lawful orders of a court, and the fact that the
contemnor acted innocently and not in intentional disregard of a court order
is not a defense to a charge of civil contempt. . . . The absences of
willfulness does not relieve from civil contempt. Civil as distinguished from
criminal contempt is a sanction to enforce compliance with an order of the
court or to compensate for losses or damages sustained by reason of
noncompliance. . . . The decree was not fashioned so as to grant or withhold
its benefits dependent on the state of mind of respondents. It laid on them
a duty to obey . . . . An act does not cease to be a violation of a law and of
a decree merely because it may have been done innocently. The force and
vitality of judicial decrees derive from more robust sanctions.
Case No. 2025-00781PQ -9- SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMM.
Badertscher v. Badertscher, 2015-Ohio-2189, ¶ 10 (9th Dist.), quoting Pugh v. Pugh, 15
Ohio St.3d 136, 140 (1984), quoting Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk, 27 Ohio St.2d at
paragraph three of the syllabus, and McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187,
191 (1949).
{¶27} “‘[B]ecause the purpose of a civil contempt motion is to compel compliance
with the court’s order rather than to punish disobedience, when compliance becomes
moot, the contempt proceeding is also moot.’” In re J.C., 2024-Ohio-343, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.),
quoting Robinette v. Bryant, 2015-Ohio-119, ¶ 47 (4th Dist.); see also Sullivan v. Sullivan,
2020-Ohio-5036, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.); Darr v. Livingston, 2017-Ohio-841, ¶ 15 (10th Dist.),
citing Williamson v. Cooke, 2007-Ohio-493, ¶ 12 (“once a party complies with the
underlying court order, civil contempt proceedings become moot”). “Therefore, civil
contempt is appropriately used only to accomplish obedience, not to punish
disobedience.” Tomasik v. Tomasik, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 253 (9th Dist. Jan. 29, 1997).
{¶28} Here, requester asserts a claim of indirect civil contempt against respondent,
since requester alleges that respondent engaged in contemptuous behavior that occurred
outside the presence of the court.
{¶29} Upon review of the records before the special master, respondent has
produced all public records responsive to requester’s public record requests, as lawfully
ordered in the December 18, 2025 decision and entry.
{¶30} The special master therefore recommends that the court conclude that
requester’s February 2, 2026 motion for contempt is moot as it relates to requester’s
public record requests, as lawfully ordered in the December 18, 2025 decision and entry
(requester’s February 2, 2026 motion for contempt is DENIED as moot).
{¶31} However, upon review, clear and convincing evidence establishes that
respondent has, to date, failed to reimburse requester his filing fee, as lawfully ordered in
the December 18, 2025 decision and entry. The court issued its decision and entry on
December 18, 2025 and, as such, it has been over four months and respondent has failed
to reimburse requester,2 who is in the custody and control of respondent, his filing fee.
2
The special master notes that it has also been over two months since respondent’s February 13, 2026
response in opposition to requester’s February 2, 2026 motion for contempt confirmed the reimbursement
process had been started and the special master provided a date for respondent to show satisfaction of court’s
Case No. 2025-00781PQ -10- SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMM.
See S.H.B. v. M.W.L., 2019-Ohio-3036, ¶ 22 (8th Dist.) (“Where a court’s order does not
include a deadline for compliance, a reasonable time for compliance may be inferred.).
But because respondent has started the reimbursement process, awaiting only
administrative processing, respondent could be provided a date certain to complete
reimbursement of requester’s filing fee to allow respondent to preemptively purge any
finding of contempt, which would then render requester’s entire February 2, 2026 motion
for contempt moot. (Internal citations omitted.) See State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v.
Hunter, 2013-Ohio-5614, ¶ 25 (“If a contempt charge is premised on a party's failure to
obey an order of the court, then the order must be clear and definite, unambiguous, and
not subject to dual interpretations. An order that is indefinite or uncertain in its meaning
cannot be enforced in contempt.”).
{¶32} The special master therefore recommends that the court conclude by clear
and convincing evidence that respondent is in contempt as it relates to the reimbursement
of requester’s filing fee, as lawfully ordered in the December 18, 2025 decision and entry
(requester’s February 2, 2026 motion for contempt is GRANTED), or provide respondent
a date certain to preemptively purge any possible finding of contempt related to the
reimbursement of requester’s filing fee, which would then render the entire February 2,
2026 motion for contempt moot. See Flowers v. Flowers, 2011-Ohio-5972, ¶ 9 (10th
Dist.), citing Sansom v. Sansom, 2006-Ohio-3909, ¶ 24 (10th Dist.). (“A sanction for civil
contempt must provide the contemnor the opportunity to purge himself or herself of the
contempt.”).
III. Conclusion.
{¶33} In light of the foregoing, the special master recommends that the court:
A. Find respondent satisfied the court’s December 18, 2025 decision and entry
ordering respondent to “produce copies of the records responsive to the
portions of the July 7, 2025, described in the R&R and appendix thereof;”
B. Find respondent satisfied the court’s December 18, 2025 decision and entry
ordering respondent to “produce records responsive to the Security Level
December 18, 2025 decision and entry as it relates to the reimbursement of the filing fee in his April 17, 2026
order, to which respondent filed an affidavit instead confirming that the filing fee has still yet to be reimbursed.
Case No. 2025-00781PQ -11- SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMM.
Review Request subject to redactions supported by law including redactions
supported by exemptions found in R.C. 5120.21(A)-(D);”
C. Find respondent failed to satisfy the court’s December 18, 2025 decision and
entry ordering respondent to “reimburse [requester] for his filing fee[;]”
D. Conclude that requester’s February 2, 2026 motion for contempt is moot as it
relates to requester’s public record requests, as lawfully ordered in the
December 18, 2025 decision and entry (requester’s February 2, 2026 motion
for contempt is DENIED as moot); and
E. Conclude by clear and convincing evidence that respondent is in contempt as
it relates to the reimbursement of requester’s filing fee, as lawfully ordered in
the December 18, 2025 decision and entry (requester’s February 2, 2026
motion for contempt is GRANTED), or provide respondent a date certain to
preemptively purge any possible finding of contempt related to the
reimbursement of requester’s filing fee, which would then render requester’s
entire February 2, 2026 motion for contempt moot.
{¶34} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), either party may file a written objection with
the clerk of the Court of Claims of Ohio within seven (7) business days after receiving this
report and recommendation. Any objection shall be specific and state with particularity
all grounds for the objection. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s
adoption of any factual findings or legal conclusions in this report and recommendation
unless a timely objection was filed thereto. R.C. 2743.75(G)(1).
ADAM Z. MORRIS
Special Master
Filed April 28, 2026
Sent to S.C. Reporter 5/11/26