State ex rel. Fenstermaker v. McConville

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio addresses an inmate’s public-records mandamus action against the Knox County Prosecuting Attorney. The court holds that R.C. 2969.25 does not apply to original actions filed in the Supreme Court of Ohio, denies mandamus relief because the requested records were either produced or not shown to exist, and awards $700 in statutory damages for an unreasonable delay in producing a records-retention schedule.

Holdings

1. R.C. 2969.25 does not require dismissal of an inmate's original mandamus action filed in the Supreme Court of Ohio because R.C. 2969.21(B) excludes such an action from the statutory definition of a civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee.
2. Fenstermaker's request for a writ of mandamus concerning the records-retention schedule was moot because the prosecutor provided that requested record.
3. Fenstermaker was not entitled to mandamus relief compelling production of the certified statements or cashbook because he failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that those records existed and were maintained by the prosecutor's office.
4. Fenstermaker was entitled to $700 in statutory damages because the prosecutor failed to provide the records-retention schedule within a reasonable period of time.
5. Fenstermaker was not entitled to an award of court costs because he filed an affidavit of indigency and therefore had no court costs to recover.

Questions Presented

1. Whether R.C. 2969.25 required dismissal of the inmate's original mandamus action filed in the Supreme Court of Ohio.
2. Whether Fenstermaker's mandamus claim concerning the records-retention schedule was moot after the prosecutor produced that record.
3. Whether Fenstermaker established by clear and convincing evidence that the requested certified statements and cashbook existed and were maintained by the prosecutor's office.
4. Whether the prosecutor's nearly three-month delay in producing the records-retention schedule violated the reasonable-time requirement of R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and entitled Fenstermaker to statutory damages.
5. Whether Fenstermaker was entitled to an award of court costs.

Disposition

writ_denied