Johnson v. Cleveland Police Dept.

[Cite as Johnson v. Cleveland Police Dept., 2023-Ohio-628.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
WILLIE JOHNSON Case No. 2023-00031PQ
Requester Special Master Todd Marti
v. RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS
CLERK, CLEVELAND POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Respondent
{¶1} This matter is before the Special Master for a R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) examination
of Requester Willie Johnson’s (“Johnson”) complaint. Based on that examination, the
Special Master recommends that the complaint be dismissed because Johnson’s claim
is barred by R.C. 149.43(B)(8).
BACKGROUND
{¶2} Johnson filed this case pursuant to R.C. 2743.75, claiming that the Cleveland
Police Department (“CPD”) failed to produce public records he requested. An initial review
of the complaint suggested that Johnson is incarcerated and that the records he
requested pertain to criminal investigations. It further revealed that Johnson made no
reference to his sentencing judge making any finding about the request.
{¶3} The Special Master therefore required Johnson to provide information about
those matters pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(E)(3)(c). More specifically, Johnson was ordered
to indicate whether he was incarcerated at the time of his public records request and
whether he is currently incarcerated. He was also required to file copies of any findings
from his sentencing judge about the necessity of the public records request underlying
this case. Johnson responded that he was incarcerated at the time of his public records
request. He did not file a copy of any finding from his sentencing judge. Order, entered
January 17, 2023; Affidavit, filed February 6, 2023.
ANALYSIS
Case No. 2023-00031PQ -2- RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS
{¶4} R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) requires a special master to examine each complaint and,
if appropriate, authorizes him to recommend whether the case should be dismissed. The
fact that the requester’s complaint is barred by R.C. 149.43(B)(8) provides grounds for a
R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) dismissal. Thompson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Sheriff’s Dept., Ct. of Cl. No.
2018-00251PQ, 2018-Ohio-1577 (McGrath, J.), ¶¶ 7, 11, 15.
{¶5} R.C. 149.43(B)(8) provides, in relevant part, that:
A public office * * * is not required to permit a person who is incarcerated pursuant
to a criminal conviction * * * to inspect or to obtain a copy of any public record
concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution * * * unless * * * the judge who
imposed the sentence * * * 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. (Emphasis added).
As the highlighted language indicates, R.C. 149.43(B)(8) limits access to otherwise
available public records if three conditions are present: (1) the requester is incarcerated
pursuant to a criminal conviction, (2) the record requested pertains to a criminal
investigation or prosecution, and (3) the judge sentencing the requester (or the judge’s
successor) has not found that the request is necessary to support what appears to be a
justiciable claim. All those conditions are present here.
{¶6} Incarceration pursuant to a criminal conviction. Johnson has admitted that he
was incarcerated when he made the request prompting this case. Affidavit, supra. A
public record posted on the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s (“ODRC”)
website reports that Johnson was and is incarcerated for a criminal conviction1 and the
special master takes judicial notice of that fact. State v. Perry, 11th Dist. Trumbull No.
2014-T-0029, 2015-Ohio-1221, ¶ 21 (taking judicial notice of litigant’s criminal
incarceration based on ODRC website); State v. Tuttle, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110508,
2022-Ohio-303, ¶¶ 16-18 (taking judicial notice of time of incarceration based on on-line
public records).
1ODRC, Offender Details,
https://appgateway.drc.ohio.gov/OffenderSearch/Search/Details/A409863 (accessed
February 21, 2023).
Case No. 2023-00031PQ -3- RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS
{¶7} Record concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution. This is established
by the face of Johnson’s complaint. The request was made to a police department, an
entity that conducts criminal investigations. Complaint, filed January 11, 2023, at p. 3. He
seeks “forensic laboratory reports” (emphasis added), id., and “forensic” is commonly
understood to refer to solving crimes. The Cambridge Dictionary (“related to scientific
methods of solving crimes, involving examining the objects or substances that are
involved in the crime”);2 The Collins Dictionary (“the work of scientists who examine
evidence in order to help the police solve crimes”).3 He seeks information about “victims”
and “rape kits” that the CPD obtained or shared with the “Prosecutor’s office” and the
“crime laboratory,” matters involved in criminal investigations/prosecutions. Complaint, p.
3. Johnson therefore seeks records concerning criminal investigations/prosecutions.
{¶8} Lack of judicial finding. Nothing in Johnson’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.
Thompson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Sheriff’s Dept., Ct. of Cl. No. 2018-00251PQ, 2018-Ohio-
1577, ¶ 11. Further, Johnson has not filed a copy of any such finding after being ordered
to do so.
{¶9} In sum, the three conditions for R.C. 149.43(B)(8)’s applicability are present
here. Johnson’s claim is therefore barred by R.C. 149.43(B)(8).
{¶10} That is not changed by the fact that Johnson seeks records that pertain to
more than his own criminal case. R.C. 149.43(B)(8) controls requests for “any public
record concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution” (emphasis added). The word
“any” is all inclusive; it is generally understood to be mean “all,” to be equivalent of “every,”
and to preclude exceptions. Wachendorf v. Shaver, 149 Ohio St. 231, 239-240, 78 N.E.2d
370 (1948); Ives v. McNicoll, 59 Ohio St. 402, 419, 53 N.E. 60 (1899); Motor Cargo, Inc.
2 Cambridge Dictionary, forensic,
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/forensic (Accessed February 21,
2023).
3 The Collins Dictionary, forensic,
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/forensic (Accessed February 21,
2023.
Case No. 2023-00031PQ -4- RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS
v. Bd. of Twp. Trustees, 52 O.O. 257, 117 N.E.2d 224, 225 (Summit C.P.1953). R.C.
149.43(B)(8) therefore controls requests for otherwise qualifying records, regardless of
who they pertain to. See State ex rel. Papa v. Starkey, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2014CA00001,
2014-Ohio-2989, ¶ 9 (“The plain language of the statute does not limit the need to obtain
a judicial finding only when an inmate is requesting his own records”); Tingler v. Ottawa
Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, Ct. of Cl. No. 2017-00248-PQ, 2017-Ohio-8451, ¶ 6.
CONCLUSION
{¶11} The Special Master recommends that Johnson’s complaint be dismissed
pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) because his claim is barred by R.C. 149.43(B)(8). The
Special Master further recommends that court costs be assessed against Johnson.
{¶12} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), either party may file a written objection with
the clerk of the Court of Claims of Ohio within seven (7) business days after receiving this
report and recommendation. Any objection shall be specific and state with particularity all
grounds for the objection. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption
of any factual findings or legal conclusions in this report and recommendation unless a
timely objection was filed thereto. R.C. 2743.75(G)(1).
TODD MARTI
Special Master
Filed February 21, 2023
Sent to S.C. Reporter 3/2/23