State ex rel. Sylvia v. Am. Corr. Assn.

[Cite as State ex rel. Sylvia v. Am. Corr. Assn., 2022-Ohio-3568.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO EX REL. : JUDGES:
JOHN SYLVIA :
:
: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Relator : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs- :
: Case No. 2022 CA 0029
:
AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL :
ASSOCIATION :
:
:
Respondent : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Complaint for Writ of Mandamus
JUDGMENT: DISMISSED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: October 3, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For: Relator For: Respondent
JOHN SYLVIA #A764-470 NICHOLAS D. ATTERHOLT
Richland Correctional Institution Weldon, Hutson & Keyser, LLP
1001 Olivesburg Road 76 N. Mulberry St.
P.O. Box 8107 Mansfield, OH 44902
Mansfield, OH 44901
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0029 2
Delaney, J.
{¶1} On May 2, 2022, Relator John Sylvia filed a Complaint for Mandamus
against Respondent American Correctional Associates (“ACA”). Sylvia contends ACA
failed to respond to his public records request. On June 1, 2022, ACA filed an Opposition
to Complaint for Writ of Mandamus. The Court will address ACA’s pleading as a Motion
for Summary Judgment and grants the motion.1
I. Background
{¶2} Sylvia is currently incarcerated in the Richland Correctional Institution. He
asserts the ACA is the functional equivalent of a state agency, who is the associate of the
ODRC and a holder of information. Sylvia requested the following information from ACA:
“Full disclosure on the creation of the [ODRC], How the [ODRC] is funded, and their
dut(ies), and relationship with other agency(ies), who they work with, and the [ODRC
primary function.”
{¶3} Sylvia claims his request has gone unanswered and ACA has not given
notice of receipt of the request or an explanation why this information was not made
available for inspection through the public records request under R.C. 149.43(B)(3).
Sylvia requests that we compel ACA to respond within a reasonable time to his request,
order the documents produced at a reasonable cost and award him statutory damages.
1 In a Judgment Entry filed on July 22, 2022, the Court converted Respondent’s
Opposition to Complaint for Writ of Mandamus into a summary judgment motion and
allowed the parties to submit additional evidence and briefing.
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0029 3
II. Elements for writ of mandamus and Civ.R. 56 standard
A. Elements for writ of mandamus
{¶4} Ohio’s Public Records Act requires a public office to make copies of public
records available to any person on request and within a reasonable period of time. R.C.
149.43(B)(1). State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 161 Ohio St.3d 130, 2020-Ohio-3686,
161 N.E.3d 575, ¶ 9. The Ohio Supreme Court construes the Public Records Act as
“’liberally in favor of broad access’” to public records. State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v.
Hamilton Cty., 75 Ohio St.3d 374, 376, 662 N.E.2d 334 (1996).
{¶5} Under R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(b), a mandamus action is the remedy for a person
denied access to a public record. “To prevail on a claim for mandamus relief in a public-
records case, a party must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief and a
corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the respondents to provide that relief.” State
ex rel. Penland v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, 158 Ohio St.3d 15, 2019-
Ohio-4130, 139 N.E.3d 862, ¶ 9, citing State ex rel. Am. Civ. Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc.
v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 128 Ohio St.3d 256, 2011-Ohio-625, 943 N.E.2d 553,
¶ 22.
B. Summary judgment standard
{¶6} A court may grant summary judgment, under Civ.R. 56 if it determines: (1)
no genuine issues as to any material fact remain to be litigated; (2) the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that
reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and viewing such evidence most
strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made,
that conclusion is adverse to that party. Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317,
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0029 4
327, 364 N.E.2d 267 (1977). The record on summary judgment must be viewed in the
light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Williams v. First United Church of
Christ, 37 Ohio St.2d 150, 151, 309 N.E.2d 924 (1974).
{¶7} The moving party bears the initial responsibility of identifying the basis for
the motion and those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine
issue of fact on a material element of the nonmoving party's claim. Dresher v. Burt, 75
Ohio St.3d 280, 292, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). Once the moving party has met the burden,
the nonmoving party then has a reciprocal burden of specificity and cannot rest on the
allegations or denials in the pleadings, but must set forth “specific facts” by the means
listed in Civ.R. 56(C) showing that a “triable issue of fact exists.” Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38
Ohio St.3d 112, 115, 526 N.E.2d 789 (1988).
III. Analysis
{¶8} Sylvia requests the Court issue an order requiring ACA to produce certain
records. In support of this argument, Sylvia alleges ACA is the “functional equivalent” of
a government or state agency and therefore, is subject to Ohio’s Public Records Act.
{¶9} The Complaint for Writ of Mandamus indicates ACA is located in
Alexandria, Virginia. In its Opposition to Complaint for Writ of Mandamus, ACA attached
the affidavit of Jeffrey Washington, the Deputy Executive Director of ACA. [Washington
Affid., ¶ 2] In his affidavit, Mr. Washington avers:
3. ACA is a private, not-for-profit corporation organized under the
laws of the State of New York. ACA’s offices are located in Alexandria,
Virginia. ACA is a charitable, educational organization exempt from federal
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0029 5
income taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
ACA has no office or physical presence in the State of Ohio.
4. ACA is a voluntary membership association the members of
which include correctional officers and other corrections officials at the
local, state and federal level.
5. ACA is not an agency of any state, including Ohio.
6. ACA has no record of receiving Realtor’s February 22, 2022
request for documents.
7. The documents requested by Relator relate to the original,
funding and function of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction. ACA would have no reason to have, and in fact does not have,
any records within its possession, custody or control which are responsive
to Relator’s requests.
[Washington Affidavit, ¶ 3-7]
{¶10} Sylvia indicates in the caption of his Complaint for Writ of Mandamus ACA
is located in Alexandria, Virginia. R.C. 149.43(C) requires the bringing of a mandamus
action in the district where the failure to release records occurred. The language states:
(b) * * * The mandamus action may be commenced in the court of common
pleas of the county in which division (B) of this section allegedly was not
complied with, in the supreme court pursuant to its original jurisdiction
under Section 2 of Article IV, Ohio Constitution, or in the court of appeals
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0029 6
for the appellate district in which division (B) of this section allegedly was
not complied with pursuant to its original jurisdiction under Section 3 of
Article IV, Ohio Constitution.
(Emphasis added.) See State ex rel. Pierce v Dowler, 89 Ohio App.3d 670, 626 N.E.2d
1033 (10th Dist.), where the Tenth District Court of Appeals transferred a case from the
Tenth District to the Twelfth District Court of Appeals because the state agency that failed
to produce the requested records was located in the Twelfth District. Thus, the Pierce
court concluded that seeking mandamus relief in the proper jurisdiction is a venue issue.
{¶11} Here, the agency that allegedly failed to respond to Sylvia’s public records
request is located in Alexandria, Virginia. Therefore, the Fifth District Court of Appeals,
Richland County, is not the proper venue for the filing of this mandamus action since ACA
is not located within the jurisdiction of the Court. Any relief would need to be commenced
in the state of Virginia under Virginia law. Further, this Court cannot transfer this matter
to Virginia and order it to respond under Ohio law.
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0029 7
CONCLUSION
{¶12} For these reasons, we grant summary judgment in favor of ACA under
Civ.R. 56. The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default
notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See Civ.R. 58(B).
MOTION GRANTED.
CAUSE DISMISSED.
COSTS TO RELATOR.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
By: Delaney, J.,
Gwin, P.J. and
Hoffman, J., concur.