Clarifying Ohio’s Public Records Act Obligations: Proper Submission, Prepayment, and Custodial Duties in Prison Context

Introduction

In State ex rel. Clark v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-1577, the Supreme Court of Ohio considered the scope of a prisoner’s rights under the Ohio Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43). Relator Thomas Clark, an inmate at the Lebanon Correctional Institution, filed a mandamus action seeking paper copies of three categories of records:

A “Legal Dockets” memorandum from the prison library;
A mailroom-department memorandum on ViaPath media review;
Commissary purchase receipts and corresponding price lists.

Clark also sought statutory damages and court costs for alleged violations of the Act. The Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) resisted, arguing that Clark either failed to make proper requests or did not prepay the small fees required for copying. The key issues before the Court were:

Whether Clark’s requests were properly directed to the public office or person responsible for the records;
Whether prepayment procedures were satisfied;
The availability of statutory damages when a record request is untimely or improperly refused;
What evidence may be admitted as rebuttal in an original mandamus action.

The per curiam majority denied the writ of mandamus—except as to the “Legal Dockets” memorandum, which DRC had produced—and refused statutory damages and court costs. Two justices dissented in part, urging a broader reading of who qualifies as “the public office or person responsible for public records” under R.C. 149.43.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court’s decision can be divided into three principal holdings:

1. Rebuttal Evidence

Granted leave to file two pieces of rebuttal evidence that directly challenged the respondent’s factual assertions regarding how the relator was instructed to submit his “cash slip” payments.
Denied leave as to other documents that did not directly refute new facts introduced by DRC (e.g., unrelated commissary flyers).

2. Mandamus on the Merits

The request for the “Legal Dockets” memorandum was rendered moot by DRC’s production of the record.
Clark failed to show a violation of the Act as to the ViaPath memorandum and commissary records, because he never submitted those requests to the person (or office) charged with responding to inmate public records requests.

3. Statutory Damages and Costs

Denied statutory‐damages awards: the evidence was “evenly balanced” on whether the prepayment requirement for the “Legal Dockets” memorandum was properly met.
Denied an award of court costs, because Clark avowed indigency.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

State ex rel. Griffin v. Szoke, 2023-Ohio-3096: Holds that an inmate’s request sent to an incorrect prison official does not establish a Public Records Act violation.
State ex rel. Mobley v. Powers, 2024-Ohio-104: Defines the narrow scope of permissible rebuttal evidence in an original action.
State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Port Auth., 2009-Ohio-1767: Confirms that providing records after suit is filed moots the mandamus claim.
State ex rel. Ware v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2024-Ohio-1015: Validates redirecting requests to the designated point of contact at a prison, without deeming the refusal a violation per se.

Legal Reasoning

The Act imposes two core obligations on “a public office or person responsible for public records” (R.C. 149.43(B)(1)):

Make copies of requested public records available at cost; and
Do so within a reasonable time.

To obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show (by clear and convincing evidence) a clear legal right to the requested record and a clear duty on the part of the custodian to produce it. The Court emphasized three points:

Proper Recipient: A request must be made to “the public office or person responsible for public records.” Prison staff not charged with records duties may redirect inmates to the designated public‐information officer without incurring liability for refusal.
Advance Payment: Under R.C. 149.43(B)(6), the custodian may require prepayment of copying fees. Unless the payment is demonstrably received, there is no duty to provide the records.
Mootness and Statutory Damages: If the record is produced after suit, mandamus is moot but statutory damages remain available—unless the relator cannot satisfy the heightened proof of timely and proper prepayment.

Impact on Future Cases and the Public Records Act

This decision reinforces several critical principles under Ohio law:

Public offices may designate a single point of contact to handle records requests, including in a prison setting.
Redirecting a request to that point of contact does not by itself violate the Act.
Requesters must strictly comply with prepayment instructions, or else the custodian has no obligation to produce the record.
Even if a record is eventually produced, claimants seeking statutory damages must show by clear and convincing evidence that prepayment was timely made and received by the proper official.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mandamus: A court order forcing a public official or office to perform a ministerial duty—here, turning over public records.
Kite: Prison-jargon for written correspondence between an inmate and staff.
Cash Slip: A small “receipt” form used by inmates to prepay nominal fees for copying documents.
Statutory Damages: A fixed penalty (up to $100 per business day, capped at $1,000) awarded when a public office unreasonably delays or refuses a request under R.C. 149.43(B).
Rebuttal Evidence: New evidence submitted to counter specific factual assertions introduced by the opposing party.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Clark clarifies the interplay of request routing, prepayment requirements, and custodial duties under Ohio’s Public Records Act. Prisoners must deliver their record requests—and any prepayment slips—to the official charged with processing public records. Custodians may properly redirect requests to the designated public‐information officer, and absent demonstrable receipt of payment, they owe no duty to produce the requested documents. While the Court denied relief here, the decision provides a roadmap for how both incarcerated requesters and public offices must navigate R.C. 149.43 to secure timely and enforceable access to government records.