Discretionary Acceptance of Uncontested Facts and the Clear-and-Convincing Burden in Public-Records Mandamus: State ex rel. Ware v. Sheldon

Introduction

In State ex rel. Ware v. Sheldon, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-1768, the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed the standard by which a prisoner-requester must prove a Public Records Act violation and clarified the Court’s discretion in accepting uncontroverted factual assertions when contradictory evidence exists. Relator Kimani E. Ware, an inmate at the Richland Correctional Institution, sought a writ of mandamus compelling Sheriff Steve Sheldon to produce jail policies and use-of-force reports, statutory damages, and court costs. The key legal issues were (1) whether the sheriff timely and fully complied with Ware’s public-records request, (2) the standard of proof required under R.C. 149.43, and (3) the Court’s authority to refuse to accept a relator’s version of events when evidence suggests fabrication.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, denied Ware’s petition for a writ of mandamus, his request for statutory damages, and his motion for court costs. It also denied both parties’ motions for leave to file additional evidence. The Court held that Ware failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the sheriff did not produce the inmate-grievance policy, the use-of-force policy, or the requested use-of-force reports. Although the sheriff neglected to file a timely merit brief, the Court exercised its discretion not to accept Ware’s factual allegations as true because it found the relator’s own submitted documents — notably his version of the sheriff’s response letter — to be likely altered.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 2006-Ohio-903: Established that mandamus is the proper remedy to compel compliance with the Public Records Act.
State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer, 2021-Ohio-1419: Reaffirmed the “clear and convincing” burden for proving a violation of R.C. 149.43 and explained that the requester must show a “clear legal right” to the records and a “clear legal duty” on the public office to produce them.
State ex rel. Ware v. Vigluicci, 2024-Ohio-4997: Declared Ware a vexatious litigator, illustrating Ware’s history of filing frivolous or fraudulent pleadings.
State ex rel. Ware v. Crawford, 2022-Ohio-295: Prior lead opinion noting Ware’s pattern of misrepresenting evidence in public-records litigation.

These authorities framed the Court’s analysis of both the procedural posture and the evidentiary requirements in public-records mandamus actions. They underscore the high standard of proof and the Court’s authority to police fraudulent conduct.

Legal Reasoning

The opinion turns on two discrete but related principles:

Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard: Under R.C. 149.43, a requester must show by clear and convincing evidence that (a) he made a proper, timely public-records request; (b) the records are publicly accessible; and (c) the public office unlawfully withheld or failed to produce them within a reasonable time.
Judicial Discretion to Accept or Reject Factual Assertions: Although Court of Appeals Practice Rule 12.07(B)(3) allows the Supreme Court to accept a relator’s facts as unchallenged when a respondent fails to file a brief, the rule is permissive, not mandatory. Here, the sheriff submitted evidence (a dated two-page response letter) that directly contradicted Ware’s one-page version. The Court found it “more likely than not” that Ware had altered his own exhibit to suppress evidence of compliance. On this basis, the Court exercised its discretion to reject Ware’s uncorroborated factual narrative.

By combining these principles, the Court emphasized that a litigant cannot gain an undue advantage from an opponent’s procedural default when affirmative evidence disproves his claims. Even in the absence of a respondent’s brief, a relator cannot satisfy his burden with self-serving or fraudulent documents.

Impact

State ex rel. Ware v. Sheldon reinforces several important rules for future public-records litigation:

Strict Burden of Proof: Requesters must marshal clear and convincing evidence of a records-withholding violation; mere allegations or unverified duplications are inadequate.
Evidence Scrutiny: Courts retain discretion to examine the reliability of submitted materials and may refuse to credit altered or deceptive documents even if the opposing party defaults.
Procedural Fairness: The decision discourages litigants from filing incomplete or fraudulent records requests and punishes bad-faith conduct by denying statutory remedies and costs.
Vexatious Litigation Protections: Ware’s status as a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03 underscores the Court’s willingness to curb abusive filings and preserve judicial resources.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Writ of Mandamus: A court order compelling a public official to perform a duty required by law.
Clear and Convincing Evidence: A heightened standard of proof requiring a high probability that the claim is true.
Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43): Ohio law guaranteeing public access to government documents upon request.
Vexatious Litigator: A person barred from initiating new proceedings without permission because of a demonstrated pattern of abusive litigation tactics.
Discretionary Acceptance of Facts: Even if a respondent fails to challenge factual assertions, a court may reject them if credible contradictory evidence exists.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Ware v. Sheldon sets a clear precedent: inmates and other requesters under the Public Records Act must meet a demanding standard of proof and cannot rely on procedural defaults to carry unsubstantiated claims. Courts may—and will—scrutinize the integrity of submitted evidence, refuse to accept altered documents, and deny statutory relief when compliance is adequately demonstrated or when a relator’s own misconduct undermines the record. This decision bolsters the integrity of Ohio’s open-records regime by protecting it against both unlawful withholding and fraudulent litigation.