Johnson v. Clerk, Cleveland Police Dept. , 2023 Ohio 1859 ( 2023 )

[Cite as Johnson v. Clerk, Cleveland Police Dept., 2023-Ohio-1859.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
WILLIE JOHNSON Case No. 2023-00031PQ
Requester Judge Lisa L. Sadler
v. DECISION AND ENTRY
CLERK, CLEVELAND POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Respondent
{¶1} In this public-records case, Requester Willie Johnson, a self-represented
litigant, objects to a Special Master’s Recommendation To Dismiss. The Court overrules
Requester’s objections for reasons that follow.
I. Background
{¶2} On January 11, 2023, Requester filed a public-records complaint against
Respondent Clerk, Cleveland Police Department, asserting that Respondent denied
Requester access to public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B). Pursuant to R.C.
2743.75(D)(2), a Special Master has recommended that Requester’s complaint be
dismissed on grounds that Requester’s claim is barred by R.C. 149.43(B)(8).
{¶3} Requester filed written objections to the Special Master’s Recommendation
To Dismiss.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶4} Through the enactment of R.C. 2743.75, the General Assembly has created
an alternative means to resolve public-records disputes. Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty.
Prosecutor’s Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020-Ohio-5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 11. See
R.C. 2743.75(A). Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2), “[n]otwithstanding any provision to the
contrary in [R.C. 2743.75], upon the recommendation of the special master, the court of
claims on its own motion may dismiss [a] complaint at any time.” Thus, in accordance
Case No. 2023-00031PQ -2- DECISION & ENTRY
with R.C. 2743.75(D)(2), on the Special Master’s recommendation, this Court may sua
sponte dismiss Requester’s Complaint at any time.
{¶5} In the Recommendation To Dismiss, the Special Master notes, “Nothing in
[Requester’s] public records request or his complaint indicates that he obtained a judicial
finding that his request was necessary to support a justiciable claim. That omission is
itself sufficient grounds for dismissal. * * * Further, [Requester] has not filed a copy of
any such finding after being ordered to do so.” (Recommendation To Dismiss, 3-4.)
{¶6} The Special Master’s view is consistent with R.C. 149.43(B)(8) and case law.1
See, e.g., Dillingham v. Butler Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, Ct. of Cl. No. 2018-01034PQ,
2018-Ohio-3654, ¶ 7 (“[i]f an inmate requesting public records concerning a criminal
investigation or prosecution does not follow the requirements in R.C. 149.43(B)(8), any
action to enforce his request will be dismissed”), adopted by 2018-Ohio-4360, 2018 Ohio
Misc. LEXIS 2090 (Ohio Ct. Cl., Sept. 11, 2018), and with other case law; State ex rel.
Ellis v. Cleveland Police Forensic Laboratory, 157 Ohio St.3d 483, 2019-Ohio-4201, 137
N.E.3d 1171, ¶ 12; State ex rel. Bozsik v. Medina Cty. Sheriff Office, 9th Dist. Medina No.
17CA0088-M, 2019-Ohio-3969, ¶ 12.
{¶7} A review of Requester’s objections discloses that Requester claims to have
sent a request to a sentencing judge, but the objections do not contain a statement
establishing that a sentencing judge approved Requester’s request. Neither is
Requester’s objections accompanied by any evidence that Requester received judicial
approval.
III. Conclusion
1 R.C. 149.43(B)(8) provides:
A public office or person responsible for public records is not required to permit a
person who is incarcerated pursuant to a criminal conviction or a juvenile adjudication to
inspect or to obtain a copy of any public record concerning a criminal investigation or
prosecution or concerning what would be a criminal investigation or prosecution if the
subject of the investigation or prosecution were an adult, unless the request to inspect or
to obtain a copy of the record is for the purpose of acquiring information that is subject to
release as a public record under this section and the judge who imposed the sentence or
made the adjudication with respect to the person, or the judge’s successor in office, finds
that the information sought in the public record is necessary to support what appears to be
a justiciable claim of the person.
Case No. 2023-00031PQ -3- DECISION & ENTRY
{¶8} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2), and upon the Special Master’s
recommendation, the Court sua sponte dismisses Requester’s complaint. Court costs
are assessed to Requester. The Clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this
judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.
LISA L. SADLER
Judge
Filed May 3, 2023
Sent to S.C. Reporter 6/5/23