State ex rel. Dehler v. Mohr

2011 Ohio 959, 129 Ohio St. 3d 37, 2011 WL 832461
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 9, 2011
Docket2010-2020
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 2011 Ohio 959 (State ex rel. Dehler v. Mohr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Dehler v. Mohr, 2011 Ohio 959, 129 Ohio St. 3d 37, 2011 WL 832461 (Ohio 2011).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, the director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1 and various officials and employees of the Trumbull Correctional Institution, to provide appellant, inmate Lambert Dehler, with access to records related to the purchase of peanut butter at the prison. Dehler, however, now resides at the Mansfield Correctional Institution.

{¶ 2} The court of appeals concluded that allowing Dehler to personally inspect the requested records from his new location would be “close to impossible.” State ex rel. Dehler v. Collins, Franklin App. No. 09AP-703, 2010-Ohio-5436, 2010 WL 4521997, ¶ 10. Furthermore, providing Dehler with the requested records *38 would have created security issues, unreasonably interfered with the officials’ discharge of their duties, and violated prison rules. See id. at ¶ 11-13; see also State ex rel. Dehler v. Spatny, 127 Ohio St.3d 312, 2010-Ohio-5711, 939 N.E.2d 831, ¶ 5, and State ex rel. Dehler v. Kelly, 127 Ohio St.3d 309, 2010-Ohio-5724, 939 N.E.2d 828, ¶ 3, citing Briscoe v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Franklin App. No. 02AP-1109, 2003-Ohio-3533, 2003 WL 21512808, ¶ 16 (“With respect to penal institutions, prison administrators must be accorded deference in adopting * * * policies and practices to preserve internal order and to maintain institutional security”).

Lambert Dehler, pro se. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Ashley D. Rutherford, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

{¶ 3} Finally, Dehler was not entitled to copies of the requested records pursuant to the Public Records Act because he refused to submit prepayment for their cost. R.C. 149.43(B)(1) “authorizes a public office to require the prepayment of costs before providing copies of public records.” Spatny at ¶ 4; Kelly at ¶ 2; State ex rel. Call v. Fragale, 104 Ohio St.3d 276, 2004-Ohio-6589, 819 N.E.2d 294, ¶ 6 (“R.C. 149.43 does not require a public-records custodian to provide copies of records free of charge; instead, the Public Records Act requires only that copies of public records be made available at cost”).

{¶ 4} Therefore, Dehler failed to establish his entitlement to the requested records under R.C. 149.43, and we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., concurs in judgment only.
1

. After Dehler instituted his ease, Gary C. Mohr became the director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State ex rel. Slager v. Trelka
2024 Ohio 5125 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2024)
State ex rel. McCarley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
2023 Ohio 3175 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
State ex rel. McDougald v. Sehlmeyer (Slip Opinion)
2020 Ohio 3927 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2020)
State ex rel. Clark v. Mahoning Cnty. Common Pleas Courts
129 N.E.3d 999 (Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning County, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2011 Ohio 959, 129 Ohio St. 3d 37, 2011 WL 832461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-dehler-v-mohr-ohio-2011.