State ex rel. Hedenberg v. N. Cent. Corr. Complex

2020-Ohio-3815 (Ohio 2020) · Supreme Court of Ohio · July 28, 2020 · No. 2018-1117

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio denied Jonathan Hedenberg's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking public records from the North Central Correctional Complex and related respondents. The court held that uncontroverted evidence established that the requested records did not exist and that Hedenberg was not entitled to statutory damages because he submitted his requests through the prison kite system rather than by hand delivery, electronic submission, or certified mail. The court also denied court costs; Justice Kennedy concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing that statutory damages should be awarded for the printer-records request.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Maureen O'Connor, C.J.; Judith L. French, J.; William M. O'Neill? No; Patrick F. Fischer, J.; Pat DeWine, J.; Sharon L. Kennedy, J.; Michael P. Donnelly, J.; Jennifer Brunner? No; Melody J. Stewart, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
July 28, 2020
Docket number
2018-1117
Procedural posture
Original action in mandamus seeking production of public records under Ohio's Public Records Act, together with statutory damages and court costs.
Standard of review
The court evaluated whether uncontroverted evidence established that the requested records did not exist and whether the statutory prerequisites for damages and costs under R.C. 149.43 were satisfied.
Precedential value
Published Ohio Supreme Court opinion
Parties
Jonathan Hedenberg v. North Central Correctional Complex, Neil Turner, Becky Joyce, Mr. Potter, Mr. Minchaka, Management and Training Corporation
Disposition
writ_denied

Topics

administrative lawremediescivil procedurestatutory interpretation

Practice areas

Public recordsMandamusAdministrative lawRemedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a writ of mandamus should issue to compel NCCC to produce requested public records when uncontroverted evidence shows that the records do not exist.
  2. Whether Hedenberg was entitled to statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2) when his public-records requests were submitted through the prison kite system.
  3. Whether Hedenberg was entitled to court costs under R.C. 149.43(C)(3).

Holdings

  1. A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel production of public records when uncontroverted evidence establishes that the requested documents do not exist. Because NCCC's evidence established that it did not possess the requested sign-up sheets or printer-service records, the writ was denied.
  2. Hedenberg was not entitled to statutory damages because R.C. 149.43(C)(2) requires delivery of the public-records request by hand delivery, electronic submission, or certified mail, and a request submitted through the prison kite system does not qualify.
  3. Hedenberg was not entitled to court costs because the court did not grant a writ of mandamus and did not find that NCCC acted in bad faith by making records available after the action commenced but before disposition.

Key quotations

However, a writ of mandamus will not issue when the uncontroverted evidence shows that the requested documents do not exist. (¶ 7)
The use of a prison kite to request public records does not qualify the requester for an award of statutory damages. (¶ 14)

Factual background

While incarcerated at North Central Correctional Complex, Jonathan Hedenberg requested word-processor and LexisNexis sign-up sheets from 2015 and 2016, as well as records concerning the breakdown and servicing of prison printers. NCCC officials stated that sign-in sheets had not been retained and that printer service requests were made by telephone without records being maintained. After the court ordered NCCC to submit responsive documents, NCCC filed an affidavit stating that no responsive documents existed.

Procedural history

Hedenberg filed public-records requests seeking prison library sign-up sheets and printer-related records. He filed a mandamus complaint in the Supreme Court of Ohio, which dismissed the Attorney General as a respondent, granted an alternative writ, denied NCCC's motion to dismiss, and ordered NCCC to submit responsive documents for in camera review. NCCC submitted an affidavit stating that no responsive documents existed, and the court denied the writ, statutory damages, and court costs.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…