Obligations of Corrections Departments under R.C. 149.43: Statutory Damages for Inmate Public-Records Requests

Introduction

State ex rel. Clark v. Dept. of Rehabilitation & Correction, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-895 (March 19, 2025), presents a writ-of-mandamus action in which an inmate, Thomas Clark, challenges the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s (ODRC) failure to honor his public-records request under R.C. 149.43. Clark sought (1) a commissary price list and (2) the 2023 fall/winter master menu from his institution, Lebanon Correctional Institution (LCI). When ODRC’s designated public-information officer neither produced the records nor informed Clark of copying costs, he filed for mandamus relief, statutory damages, and court costs in the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Court granted a limited writ, awarded $1,000 in statutory damages, denied court costs, and clarified agencies’ duties and inmates’ remedies under the Public Records Act.

Summary of the Judgment

Per curiam, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that:

ODRC’s public-records officer had a clear duty under R.C. 149.43(B) to process Clark’s request and to inform him of any pre-payment copying costs.
ODRC failed both to produce the commissary price list and to notify Clark of copying costs, rendering its response unreasonable.
ODRC’s claim that it did not possess the master menu was undermined by the evidence, warranting either production of the menu or an affidavit certifying non-possession.
Clark was entitled to a limited writ compelling ODRC to comply, $1,000 in statutory damages (the Act’s $100/day cap for ten business days), and denial of court costs due to his indigence.
The Court granted Clark’s motion for leave to file rebuttal evidence, which demonstrated ODRC’s control of the master menu and its failure to set copying charges.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

R.C. 149.43(B) & (C)(2) – The Public Records Act provisions requiring public offices to produce records “within a reasonable period,” to inform requesters of copying costs, and permitting statutory‐damages awards for noncompliance.
State ex rel. Atakpu v. Shuler, 2023-Ohio-2266 – Confirms that statutory damages attach when a requester uses electronic submission to seek records and the office fails to comply.
State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer, 2021-Ohio-1419 – Defines inmate kites as a form of “electronic submission” under R.C. 149.43(B)(1).
State ex rel. Ware v. Wine, 2022-Ohio-4472 – Addresses proper custody and referral of inmate records requests within a corrections system. The Court distinguishes Wine on the ground that LCI’s public-information officer was the designated responder here.
State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson, 2023-Ohio-3028 – Holds that when an institution designates a public-information officer, inmates must direct public-records requests to that officer.
State ex rel. Akron v. Akron Pub. Affairs, 2021-Ohio-624 – Explains that failure to notify requester of copying costs contributes to an unreasonable delay and supports statutory damages.
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 2015-Ohio-974 – Establishes mandamus as the proper vehicle to enforce the Public Records Act.
State ex rel. Hubbard v. Fuerst, 2010-Ohio-2489 (8th Dist.) – Mandamus will not compel production of records not in an office’s possession or control.
State ex rel. Teagarden v. Igwe, 2024-Ohio-5772 – Confirms that indigent petitioners are not entitled to court-cost awards where an affidavit of indigency is filed.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied the four-part mandamus test:

Clark’s request constituted a proper written demand under R.C. 149.43(B)(1) by electronic kite.
ODRC’s public-information officer, Ellen Myers, had a non-discretionary duty to respond, produce the records, or at least inform Clark of the copying costs.
ODRC failed to comply: it neither delivered the requested price list nor set out a cost estimate, and it did not produce the master menu without substantiating non-possession.
Clark had no other adequate remedy at law, making mandamus appropriate.

On statutory damages, the Court invoked R.C. 149.43(C)(2), awarding $100 per business day of noncompliance beginning with the filing of the mandamus action, up to a $1,000 cap. Since Clark’s single kite sought two records in one transmission, the Court awarded a single $1,000 statutory-damages award. The concurrence by Chief Justice Kennedy underscores that statutory damages are tied to the number of qualifying transmissions (kites), not to the number of records or subjects requested.

Impact

This decision reinforces and clarifies five key points for public offices, especially correctional institutions:

Designated public-information officers must treat inmate kites as official public-records requests under R.C. 149.43.
Offices must inform requesters, including inmates, of any copying charges before seeking payment.
Failure to meet statutory deadlines or cost-notification obligations triggers mandamus relief and statutory-damages exposure.
Inmate requesters may invoke appellate mandamus directly in the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Statutory damages accrue per qualifying transmission, capped at $1,000 per request, regardless of how many individual records are bundled together.

Going forward, corrections agencies should implement clear intake procedures for inmate kites, track response times, and standardize cost-notification letters to avoid unreasonable delays and damages.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mandamus: A court order compelling a government officer to perform a statutory duty when no other adequate remedy exists.
Public-Records Request: A demand by any person for non-exempt government documents under R.C. 149.43; in prisons, an inmate kite can serve this function.
Statutory Damages: An automatic monetary penalty ($100 per business day, up to $1,000) imposed on an agency that unreasonably delays or denies records without justification.
Rebuttal Evidence: Evidence submitted by the requester to “refute or disprove” new factual assertions made by the agency, limited in scope to the issues raised by the agency’s affidavit.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Clark v. Dept. of Rehabilitation & Correction reaffirms that Ohio’s Public Records Act applies in full to inmate requesters. Correctional agencies must: (1) designate and empower public-information officers; (2) timely produce or deny records; (3) clearly communicate copying costs; and (4) understand that failure to comply exposes them to writs of mandamus and statutory damages. This decision thus strengthens transparency, ensures uniform treatment of inmates as requesters, and underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in public-records administration.