Clarifying Custodial Responsibility Under Ohio’s Public Records Act

Introduction

State ex rel. Clark v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2025-Ohio-1611, arose from a pro se mandamus action filed by inmate Thomas Clark, who claimed that the Department had ignored or denied six separate public-records requests. Clark alleged that between October 2020 and March 2024 he had sought copies of loss/theft reports, inmate handbooks, signed acknowledgments, institutional menus, and mail-processing policies from prison staff at two state facilities (NCCC and LCI). After lower tribunals issued an alternative writ, the Supreme Court of Ohio ultimately had to decide whether Clark was entitled to copies of those records under R.C. 149.43 and whether he could recover statutory damages for their nonproduction.

Summary of the Judgment

By a per curiam decision, a majority of the Ohio Supreme Court denied Clark’s writ of mandamus, concluding that he failed to show any violation of the Public Records Act. Although the Court granted in part his motion to file rebuttal evidence, it found:

Clark provided no proof that he actually sent the 2020–2021 records requests to NCCC staff.
His 2022 request for chow-hall menus at LCI was directed to food-service employees who correctly informed him that the institution did not itself maintain those menus and pointed him to the proper contractor/custodian.
His 2024 request for mail-room policies was likewise redirected by a mail-room supervisor to LCI’s public-information officer—again, not a violation under R.C. 149.43 when a noncustodial employee channels the request to the proper office.

Because Clark could not demonstrate that a “public office or person responsible for public records” had unlawfully refused to provide his records, the Court denied the writ and further declined to award statutory damages or court costs.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

State ex rel. Griffin v. Szoke (2023-Ohio-3096): Held that directing an inmate to a public-information officer does not violate R.C. 149.43.
State ex rel. Mobley v. Powers (2024-Ohio-104): Rebuttal evidence is limited to new matters raised by the opposing party’s affidavit.
State ex rel. Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office (2020-Ohio-5371): The requester bears the burden to prove he made a valid request under R.C. 149.43(B)(1).

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s decision pivots on the text of R.C. 149.43(B)(1), which requires that “upon request by any person, a public office or person responsible for public records shall make copies of the requested public record available . . . at cost and within a reasonable period of time.” Two points flow from this wording:

Who may receive the request? Any “public office” or “person responsible for public records.” The statute does not restrict the request to a single designated custodian.
Whose duty is it to comply? Either the public office itself or whoever is responsible for the particular record that has been requested.

Inmate Clark sent some requests to staff members who did not directly maintain the records in question. Under existing precedents, a response telling the requester to submit the request to the proper office or custodian does not itself violate the Act. Because Clark’s evidence failed as to the earlier NCCC requests and the record custodians at LCI were never shown to have denied his requests, the Court found no breach of R.C. 149.43(B) and thus no warrant for mandamus relief.

Impact

This ruling reaffirms a few key points in Ohio public-records law:

Public offices may designate central points of contact for records requests (e.g., public-information officers).
If a request is routed to a noncustodial employee, that employee may direct the requester to the correct office without triggering liability.
Requesters must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that a valid request was made to a proper custodian and that the request was then wrongfully denied or ignored.

Lower courts and state agencies will rely on this ruling to evaluate prisoner requests and to vet the sufficiency of proof in mandamus proceedings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mandamus: A court order compelling a government official to perform a legal duty.
Public-records custodian: Anyone who “has custody” of public records or is charged with maintaining them.
Rebuttal evidence: New proof offered solely to counter fresh facts introduced by the opposing party’s evidence.
Statutory damages: A fixed award (up to $1,000 per request) granted when an office fails “to comply” with R.C. 149.43(B)(1).

Conclusion

State ex rel. Clark v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. underscores that under R.C. 149.43, requesters need only serve their public-records demands on any public office or person responsible for the records. Directing a requester to the proper custodian—rather than supplying the records immediately—does not amount to a statutory violation. The decision thus clarifies the boundaries of custodial responsibility and reinforces the evidentiary burdens in public-records mandamus actions.