State ex rel. Penland v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio denied Alex Penland’s request for a writ of mandamus seeking access to an Aramark food-service contract maintained at the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s Columbus office. The court held that the Public Records Act did not impose a clear legal duty to transmit the record to the prison for inspection and denied statutory damages because the request was not delivered by hand or certified mail as required by the version of the statute then in effect. Justice Kennedy concurred, emphasizing the practical limitations faced by incarcerated and indigent requesters.

Holdings

1. R.C. 149.43(B)(1) does not establish a clear legal duty to transmit a public record for inspection at a location other than the custodian's business office where the record is maintained. Because Penland requested only inspection, he was not entitled to compel delivery of the contract to the Toledo Correctional Institution.
2. Penland was not entitled to statutory damages because, under the version of R.C. 149.43(C)(2) in effect when he made his request, statutory damages were available only for a request delivered by hand or sent by certified mail, and the record contained no evidence that his request was delivered in either manner.

Questions Presented

1. Whether respondents had a clear legal duty under R.C. 149.43(B)(1) to transmit a public record maintained in Columbus to the Toledo Correctional Institution so Penland could inspect it there.
2. Whether Penland was entitled to statutory damages under the version of R.C. 149.43(C)(2) in effect when he made his request.

Disposition

writ_denied