Clarifying Public-Records Mandamus Relief and Statutory Damages in Prisoner Requests

Introduction

State ex rel. Adkins v. Cole (2025-Ohio-1026) consolidates four original‐action mandamus petitions brought by Ohio inmate Patrick H. Adkins III against Lebanon Correctional Institution (“LeCI”) staff. Between August 2023 and March 2024, Adkins filed multiple electronic “kites” (inmate requests) seeking copies of correspondence, grievance records, video footage, and institutional logs. He also sought statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2) for alleged untimely or improper responses. The Supreme Court of Ohio addressed whether (1) the requested records existed or were within the prison’s control, (2) any exemptions—particularly the security-record exception—applied, (3) redactions were lawful, and (4) statutory damages should be awarded.

Summary of the Judgment

The court denied all four writs of mandamus seeking production of public records.
It denied statutory damages in three cases (2024-0740, 2024-0747, 2024-0846) where Adkins failed to carry his burden.
It awarded $1,000 in statutory damages in one case (2024-0856) because video footage existed at the time of request but was destroyed after an improper denial.
The court resolved multiple procedural motions for leave to file “rebuttal evidence,” admitting only that evidence which directly refuted the respondents’ affidavits.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

R.C. 149.43(B)(1): Duty to furnish public records “at cost and within a reasonable period.”
R.C. 149.43(C)(2): Statutory damages—$100 per business day (max $1,000)—when a public office fails to comply after written or electronic request.
R.C. 149.433(B)(1): Security-record exemption for records “directly used for protecting or maintaining the security of a public office.”
State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer (2021-Ohio-1419): Relator’s burden of proof—clear and convincing evidence of a legal right and duty.
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office (2020-Ohio-5371): Mandamus is proper to enforce Public Records Act obligations; burden of production and persuasion.
State ex rel. Mobley v. Powers (2024-Ohio-104): Scope and timing for filing rebuttal evidence under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.06(B).
State ex rel. Rogers v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (2018-Ohio-5111): Security-record exemption requires strict proof that a record “falls squarely” within the exception.
State ex rel. Scott v. Toledo Corr. Inst. (2024-Ohio-2694): No obligation to produce non-existent records.
State ex rel. Grim v. New Holland (2024-Ohio-4822): Mootness when requested records are provided.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court first reaffirmed that a writ of mandamus requires the relator to prove by clear and convincing evidence both: (a) a clear legal right to the record, and (b) a clear legal duty of the respondent to produce it. A public office’s denial may rest on exemptions or lack of possession/control.

Possession or Control: When a custodian attests no responsive records exist or are not under its control (e.g., kites to a third-party vendor), the relator must rebut that showing with direct evidence.

Security-Record Exemption: Under R.C. 149.433(A)(1), a security record is one “directly used” to protect or maintain security. The court emphasized that subjective safety concerns are insufficient; the office must show actual security use of the particular record.

Statutory Damages: Triggered when a public office fails to comply after a written or electronic request, starting on the day the mandamus action is filed. Denials become statutory damage events unless the office demonstrates a valid exemption or that records did not exist at the time of request.

Rebuttal Evidence: Admitted only if it directly contradicts new facts introduced by respondent affidavits, not merely to relitigate or reargue the merits.

3. Potential Impact

Clarifies the high burden on inmates challenging denials of prison records: mere assertion of non-compliance fails without corroborating evidence.
Refines application of the security-record exemption: prisons and other agencies must show how each withheld record is actually used for security purposes.
Reinforces that statutory damages attach only if records existed and a denial or delay occurred without valid exemption or proof of non-existence.
Limits scope of rebuttal evidence to material that directly rebuts respondents’ factual assertions, preventing overbroad discovery in mandamus actions.
Guides future inmate-filed public-records suits, particularly regarding third-party communications and footage retention schedules.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Kite”: An informal term for a written request or message an inmate sends to prison staff or outside vendors (e.g., to request tablets or public records).
Mandamus: A court order compelling a public official to perform a mandatory duty—here, producing public records under the Public Records Act.
Clear and Convincing Evidence: A higher evidentiary standard than “preponderance of the evidence,” requiring that the claim be highly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue.
Security-Record Exemption: An exception to disclosure for records “directly used” to maintain security—prisons must show actual use rather than speculative harm.
Statutory Damages (R.C. 149.43(C)(2)): $100 per business day (capped at $1,000) awarded when a public office fails to comply with a written or electronic public-records request without lawful excuse.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Adkins v. Cole refines the interplay between inmate public-records requests and prison-security concerns. It reiterates that:

A relator must produce clear and convincing proof that requested records existed and were under the custodian’s control.
To withhold under the security-record exemption, an agency must show each record’s actual, direct use in maintaining security.
Statutory damages are not automatic; they attach only when valid records exist, a denial or unjustified delay occurs, and no exemption applies.
Rebuttal evidence must specifically counter respondent affidavits, streamlining evidentiary disputes in advance of oral arguments.

This decision will guide future prisoner-filed mandamus actions, emphasizing strict adherence to evidentiary burdens, statutory text, and procedural rules.