[Cite as State ex rel. Ware v. Giavasis, 2019-Ohio-2119.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL, : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
KIMANI E. WARE : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
: Hon. Earle E. Wise, J.
Relator :
:
-vs- : Case No. 2019CA00003
:
LOUIS P. GIAVASIS :
STARK COUNTY : OPINION
CLERK OF COURTS
Respondent
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus
JUDGMENT: Summary Judgment granted in favor of
Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 28, 2019
APPEARANCES:
For Respondent For Relator
JOHN D. FERRERO KIMANI WARE Pro Se
Stark County Prosecutor # A470-743
BY DAVID E. DEIBEL Trumbull Correctional Institute
Assistant Prosecutor 5701 Burnett Road
110 Central Plaza South, Ste. 510 Leavittsburg, OH 44430
Canton, OH 44702
Stark County, Case No. 2019CA00003 2
Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} Relator, Kimani E. Ware, has filed a Complaint for Writ of Mandamus
requesting this Court order Respondent to provide Relator with certain requested public
records. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment.
{¶2} Relator submitted two public records requests to Respondent. Relator was
incarcerated at the time the public records requests were made. The first request was
for copies of Respondent’s public records policy, records retention schedule, and records
retention policy. The second request was for copies of pleadings from a criminal case.
{¶3} The records from the first request have been provided.
{¶4} “‘Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel compliance with R.C.
149.43, Ohio's Public Records Act.’ State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible
Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288, 2006–Ohio–903, 843
N.E.2d 174, ¶ 6; R.C. 149.43(C). The Public Records Act implements the state's policy
that ‘open government serves the public interest and our democratic system.’ State ex
rel. Dann v. Taft, 109 Ohio St.3d 364, 2006–Ohio–1825, 848 N.E.2d 472, ¶ 20.
‘Consistent with this policy, we construe R.C. 149.43 liberally in favor of broad access
and resolve any doubt in favor of disclosure of public records.’ State ex rel. Glasgow v.
Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391, 2008–Ohio–4788, 894 N.E.2d 686, ¶ 13.” State ex rel. Perrea
v. Cincinnati Pub. Schools, 123 Ohio St.3d 410, 2009–Ohio–4762, 916 N.E.2d 1049 at ¶
13.
{¶5} The Ohio Public Records Act imposes restrictions upon inmates seeking
certain public records. R.C. 149.43(B)(8) provides,
Stark County, Case No. 2019CA00003 3
“A public office or person responsible for public records is not
required to permit a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a criminal
conviction or a juvenile adjudication to inspect or to obtain a copy of any
public record concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution or
concerning what would be a criminal investigation or prosecution if the
subject of the investigation or prosecution were an adult, unless the request
to inspect or to obtain a copy of the record is for the purpose of acquiring
information that is subject to release as a public record under this section
and the judge who imposed the sentence or made the adjudication with
respect to the person, or the judge's successor in office, finds that the
information sought in the public record is necessary to support what
appears to be a justiciable claim of the person.” R.C. 149.43.
{¶6} As the Supreme Court has observed, R.C. 149.43(B) “clearly sets forth
heightened requirements for inmates seeking public records. The General Assembly's
broad language clearly includes offense and incident reports as documents that are
subject to the additional requirement to be met by inmates seeking records concerning a
criminal investigation or prosecution. The General Assembly clearly evidenced a public-
policy decision to restrict a convicted inmate's unlimited access to public records in order
to conserve law enforcement resources.” State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d
409, 856 N.E.2d 966, 2006-Ohio-5858.
{¶7} Relator has not averred that he sought and received a finding from the
sentencing court allowing him to obtain copies of the requested public records. The plain
language of the statute does not limit the need to obtain a judicial finding only when an
Stark County, Case No. 2019CA00003 4
inmate is requesting his own records. In order to establish a clear legal right to the
requested records, Relator must establish he obtained judicial approval to obtain the
records. Relator has failed to establish he was entitled to the requested records because
he did not obtain judicial approval.
{¶8} For this reason, we find Relator has failed to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted and grant Respondent’s motion for summary judgment.