Sell v. Trumbull Cty. Court of Common Pleas

[Cite as Sell v. Trumbull Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2023-Ohio-1174.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
JAMIE L. SELL Case No. 2022-00867PQ
Requester Judge Patrick E. Sheeran
v. JUDGMENT ENTRY
TRUMBULL COUNTY COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS
Respondent
{¶1} On February 14, 2023, upon Requester’s Complaint seeking court records
about a criminal trial that was held in 2017, a Special Master recommended dismissal of
this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Ten days later, on February 24, 2023,
Respondent moved for an order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
{¶2} The jurisdiction of the Court of Claims “is limited by statute and specifically
confined to the powers conferred by the legislature.” State ex rel. DeWine v. Court of
Claims of Ohio, 130 Ohio St.3d 244, 2011-Ohio-5283, 957 N.E.2d 280, ¶ 21. Through
R.C. 2743.75 and 2743.03(A)(3)(b) the General Assembly has granted jurisdiction to the
Court of Claims to resolve disputes alleging a denial of access to public records in
violation of R.C. 149.43(B). See R.C. 2743.75(A)(1) and 2743.03(A)(3)(b); see also
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020-Ohio-
5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 11. Under R.C. 2743.75(A)(1), except for a court that hears a
mandamus action pursuant to R.C. 149.43, the Court of Claims is the sole and exclusive
authority in this state that adjudicates or resolves complaints based on alleged violations
of R.C. 149.43. R.C. 2743.75(A)(1). 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.”
Case No. 2022-00867PQ -2- JUDGMENT ENTRY
Thus, in this instance, under R.C. 2743.75(D)(2), this Court may on its own motion dismiss
Requester’s complaint at any time upon the Special Master’s recommendation.
{¶3} The Supreme Court of Ohio has instructed: “‘Sup.R. 44 through 47 deal
specifically with the procedures regulating public access to court records and are
the sole vehicle for obtaining records in actions commenced after July 1, 2009.’”
(Emphasis sic.) State ex rel. Harris v. Pureval, 155 Ohio St.3d 343, 2018-Ohio-4718, 121
N.E.3d 337, ¶ 10, quoting State ex rel. Richfield v. Laria, 138 Ohio St.3d 168, 2014-Ohio-
243, 4 N.E.3d 1040, ¶ 8. Because the Ohio Public Records Act is inapplicable to a request
for records of a court proceeding that was held in 2017, Requester is required to seek
relief under the Rules of Superintendence. See State ex rel. Harris at ¶ 10. Pursuant to
Sup.R. 47(B), “[a] person aggrieved by the failure of a court or clerk of court to comply
with the requirements of Sup.R. 44 through 47 may pursue an action in mandamus
pursuant to [R.C. Chapter 2731]”). The Tenth District Court of Appeals, however, has
stated that “it is * * * clear under Ohio law that the Court of Claims, a court of limited
jurisdiction, lacks statutory jurisdiction to consider mandamus.” Rose v. Ohio Dept. of
Rehab. & Correction, 173 Ohio App.3d 767, 2007-Ohio-6184, 880 N.E.2d 508, ¶ 23 (10th
Dist.).
{¶4} Wherefore, the Court finds the Special Master’s recommendation for
dismissal is well taken. Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2), the Court sua sponte
DISMISSES Requester’s Complaint without prejudice. The Court DENIES, as moot,
Respondent’s motion of February 24, 2023. 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.
PATRICK E. SHEERAN
Judge
Filed March 16, 2023
Sent to S.C. Reporter 4/7/23