Summary
This Supreme Court of Ohio slip opinion addresses a mandamus action brought by an inmate seeking copies of a county prosecutor’s cashbooks and certified cost reports under Ohio’s Public Records Act. The court found that the relator failed to meet his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the requested records existed or were maintained by the prosecutor’s office. Consequently, the court denied the writ of mandamus, as well as requests for statutory damages and court costs. The court also denied the prosecutor’s motion for sanctions against the relator.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Mobley proved by clear and convincing evidence that the prosecutor maintained a cashbook pursuant to R.C. 2335.25.
- Whether Mobley proved by clear and convincing evidence that the prosecutor maintained certified reports pursuant to R.C. 2335.27.
- Whether Mobley is entitled to statutory damages under R.C. 149.43.
- Whether Mobley is entitled to court costs.
- Whether the prosecutor's motion for sanctions should be granted.
Holdings
- Mobley failed to meet the clear‑and‑convincing‑evidence burden; the writ of mandamus is denied as to the cashbook request.
- Mobley failed to produce evidence of the certified reports; the writ is denied as to that request.
- Mobley is not entitled to statutory damages because the prosecutor complied with R.C. 149.43(B) by stating no records existed.
- Mobley is not entitled to court costs because he filed an affidavit of indigency.
- The motion for sanctions is denied.
Key quotations
“When a public office attests that it does not have responsive records, the relator in a public-records mandamus case bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the requested records exist and are maintained by the public office.” (¶ 12)
“A public-records requester shall be entitled to statutory damages if (1) he transmitted a written public-records request by hand delivery, electronic submission, or certified mail, (2) he made the request to the public office or person responsible for the requested records, (3) he fairly described the records sought, and (4) the public office failed to comply with an obligation under R.C. 149.43(B).” (¶ 22)
Factual background
Alphonso Mobley Jr., an inmate, requested the Fairfield County Prosecuting Attorney's cashbook (R.C. 2335.25) and certified reports (R.C. 2335.27) for 2016‑2021. The prosecutor asserted no such records existed and provided affidavits confirming the absence. Mobley submitted a records‑retention schedule and internal policy but offered no clear and convincing evidence that the records existed.
Procedural history
Mobley filed a mandamus action in December 2023 seeking a writ, statutory damages, and court costs. The prosecutor moved to dismiss, which was denied. The prosecutor later moved for sanctions, which was also denied. The Supreme Court of Ohio decided the matter on March 18, 2025.