Martin v. New Philadelphia Police Dept.

[Cite as Martin v. New Philadelphia Police Dept., 2023-Ohio-1862.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
JEFFERY L. MARTIN Case No. 2023-00249PQ
Requester Judge Lisa L. Sadler
v. JUDGMENT ENTRY
NEW PHILADELPHIA POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Respondent
{¶1} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2), a Special Master issued a Recommendation
To Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Upon independent review, the Court
agrees that dismissal is warranted, but for reasons other than lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.
{¶2} The Special Master states in support of his recommendation:
[Requester] does not claim that [Respondent] wrongfully withheld or
redacted a public record, claims that would be within the scope of R.C.
149.43(B). Instead, he seeks to compel [Respondent] to create a new, in
his view more accurate, report or to at least correct the existing report. This
court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such a claim or grant such relief because
it is beyond the scope of 149.43(B). It similarly lacks jurisdiction to address
alleged violations of R.C. 2921.12(A)(2) because the “Court of Claims does
not have jurisdiction to determine whether or not a crime has occurred[.]”
Evans v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Correction, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19AP-
743, 2020- Ohio-3191, ¶ 16. See also Gunnell v. Secy. of State, Ct. of Cl.
No. 2014-00832, 2015-Ohio-5617, ¶ 17.
(Recommendation To Dismiss, 2-3.)
{¶3} The Special Master’s reasoning suggests that a dismissal is warranted in this
case because, based on the Complaint’s allegations, it appears, beyond doubt, that
Case No. 2023-00249PQ -2- JUDGMENT ENTRY
Requester can prove no set of facts entitling Requester to relief. Such a dismissal would
serve to operate as an adjudication on the merits. See State ex rel. Acres v. Ohio Dept.
of Job & Family Servs., 123 Ohio St.3d 54, 2009-Ohio-4176, 914 N.E.2d 170, ¶ 15 (“a
dismissal grounded on a complaint's ‘failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted’ constitutes a judgment that is an ‘adjudication on the merits’”); see also State ex
rel. Horwitz v. Court of Common Pleas, 65 Ohio St.3d 323, 325, 603 N.E.2d 1005 (1992),
citing Defense of the Washington Local School Dist. v. Kiger , 42 Ohio St.3d 116, 117,
537 N.E.2d 1292, 1293 (1989) (“Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions attack the sufficiency of the
complaint and may not be used to summarily review the merits of a cause of action in
mandamus”).
{¶4} If subject-matter jurisdiction were lacking in this case, the Court could not
issue a ruling on the merits of the case. See Bright v. Family Medicine Found., Inc., 10th
Dist. Franklin No. 02AP-1443, 2003-Ohio-6652, ¶ 10 (a court that lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction “may not hear and decide a case on the merits”). Accord Patton v. Diemer,
35 Ohio St.3d 68, 518 N.E.2d 941 (1988), paragraph three of the syllabus (“[a] judgment
rendered by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is void ab initio”); Morrison v.
Steiner, 32 Ohio St.2d 86, 290 N.E.2d 841 (1972), paragraph one of the syllabus (subject-
matter jurisdiction of a court “connotes the power to hear and decide a case upon its
merits”).
{¶5} Through R.C. 2743.75 and 2743.03(A)(3)(b), the General Assembly has
conferred jurisdiction upon this Court to resolve disputes alleging a denial of access to
public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B). 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. See R.C. 2743.75(A)(1). And pursuant to R.C.
2743.03(A)(3)(b), the Court of Claims has exclusive, original jurisdiction under R.C.
2743.75 to hear complaints alleging a denial of access to public records in violation of
R.C. 149.43(B) regardless of whether the public office or person responsible for public
records is an office or employee of the state or of a political subdivision. See R.C.
2743.03(A)(3)(b). See generally Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office,
163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020-Ohio-5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 11.
Case No. 2023-00249PQ -3- JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶6} Under Ohio law, a requester “must establish entitlement to relief in an action
filed in the Court of Claims under R.C. 2743.75 by clear and convincing evidence.” Viola
v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110315, 2021-Ohio-4210,
¶ 16, citing Hurt v. Liberty Twp., 2017-Ohio-7820, 97 N.E.3d 1153, ¶ 27-30 (5th Dist.).
See Welsh-Huggins, supra, at ¶ 32. See also Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120
N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus (holding that clear and convincing
evidence “is that measure or degree of proof which is more than a mere ‘preponderance
of the evidence,’ but not to the extent of such certainty as is required ‘beyond a reasonable
doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief
or conviction as to the facts sought to be established”).
{¶7} It is established under Ohio law that the government “has no duty to give
information or to create new records by searching for and compiling information from
existing records.” State ex rel. Mitchell v. Byrd, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111205, 2022-
Ohio-2700, ¶ 10. Additionally, the Ohio Public Records Act concerns existing records,
not records that ought to exist. State ex rel. Ware v. DeWine, 10th Dist. Franklin No.
19AP-161, 2019-Ohio-5203 (adopting a magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of
law in an appended decision), ¶ 48.
{¶8} In this instance, as the Special Master indicates, a review of Requester’s
Complaint demonstrates that Requester essentially asks Respondent to create a new
record, which a public-records custodian has no duty to create, or modify an existing
record, which is not required as it is not an existing record. State ex rel. Mitchell v. Byrd
at ¶ 10; State ex rel. Ware v. DeWine at ¶ 48. Requester thus has not demonstrated an
entitlement to relief under R.C. 2743.75 by clear and convincing evidence. See Viola at
¶ 16.
{¶9} The Court agrees with the Special Master’s recommendation that dismissal is
appropriate, but disagrees with the Special Master’s view that dismissal should be for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2), and upon the Special
Master’s recommendation, the Court sua sponte dismisses Requester’s Complaint for
Case No. 2023-00249PQ -4- JUDGMENT ENTRY
reasons set forth above.1 Court costs are assessed against 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 9, 2023
Sent to S.C. Reporter 6/5/23
1 Under 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.” Since the Special Master has issued a recommendation for dismissal in this case, the Court
may dismiss Requester’s Complaint at any time on its own motion under R.C. 2743.75(D)(2).
Nonetheless, the Court provided the parties with an opportunity to file written objections to the
Special Master’s Recommendation To Dismiss. Neither Requester nor Respondent has filed timely written
objections to the Recommendation To Dismiss.