[Cite as State ex rel. Tenney v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2025-Ohio-1602.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO ex rel. CASE NO. 2024-T-0046 MICHAEL TENNEY,
Relator, Original Action for Writ of Mandamus
- vs -
OHIO DEP'T OF REHAB. & CORR.,
Respondent.
PER CURIAM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: May 5, 2025 Judgment: Petition denied
Michael Tenney, pro se, PID# A704-630, Belmont Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 540, St. Clairsville, OH 43950 (Relator).
Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, State Office Tower, 30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215, D. Chadd McKitrick, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Adam J. Beckler, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Justice Section, 30 East Broad Street, 23rd Floor, Columbus, OH 43215 (For Respondent).
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Pending before this court is relator, Michael Tenney’s, “Mandamus Action
Pursuant to R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(b).” Respondent, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction (ODRC) has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. For the following
reasons, we grant ODRC’s Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Tenney’s
“Mandamus Action.”
{¶2} On May 28, 2024, Tenney filed his “Mandamus Action.” Therein, Tenney, who was a prisoner at the Trumbull Correctional Institution, asserted that he had
requested public records from the Warden’s assistant relating to prison mail but that he
was provided only “a small portion of the records available” and did not receive
information about the identity of every person who handled the mail. Attached was
Tenney’s records request, in which he indicated that he had not timely received tracking
information for certified mail. He further stated: “I am requesting public records
electronically, pursuant to R.C. 149.43 in regards to all the mail that I . . . have sent and
paid for ‘certified’ as well as any postage I have paid for. To be specific, I am requesting
any and all documentation from [A]pril 20th 2023 to [A]pril 20[,] 2024 of the
aforementioned including dates the mail was picked up from the TC[I] inmate mail box,
every person who has handled the aforementioned mail, the date the funds were
processed, the person who processed the funds and finally, the dates the mail was sent
to the post office.” In the present action, Tenney requests that the respondent be ordered
to comply with R.C. 149.43 to provide all records and argues he is entitled to statutory
damages for the failure to do so.
{¶3} ODRC filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint on June 25, 2024, on grounds
relating to Tenney’s failure to provide documentation necessary to proceed on a
mandamus action. This court issued a Judgment Entry on August 2, 2024, overruling the
Motion to Dismiss. ODRC subsequently filed an Answer. Following a status conference,
this court issued an entry setting the timeline for filing dispositive motions.
{¶4} On January 9, 2025, ODRC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. ODRC
argues that it provided documents responsive to Tenney’s public records request, it
cannot provide him with documents that do not exist, and it redacted documents including
PAGE 2 OF 8
Case No. 2024-T-0046 other inmates’ information due to safety concerns. Attached to the Motion was the
affidavit of Cheri Kleinknecht, the Warden’s Administrative Assistant at Trumbull
Correctional Institution and its Public Information Officer who oversees requests for public
records. She attested that she received the electronic request from Tenney and that it
“appeared to stem from an issue he had pertaining [to] legal mail he had sent.” Three
days after the request, she responded to him, stating that “any responsive records will be
provided at .05 cents per page” and forwarded his concerns regarding the processing of
his mail to the mailroom supervisor. She averred that she researched TCI records, and
two weeks after his request, she “delivered to Mr. Tenney all documents available at TCI
that were responsive to his request and not confidential under Ohio law” as well as a
cover letter to explain which records were available, withheld, or redacted.
{¶5} According to the affidavit and attachments, the records Kleinknecht
provided to Tenney are: a redacted mail log from February 9, 2023, to April 20, 2024,
which contained information about only Tenney’s mail sent during that time; an “Inmate
Demand Statement” from April 20, 2023 through April 24, 2024, showing Tenney’s
account expenses including postage; and page 24 of “Post Orders” for the “Rover 1”
corrections officer position, which specified that the Rover collected inmate mail from a
mailbox and delivered it to the shift supervisor. Kleinknecht attested that she found no
other documents responsive to Tenney’s requests: “For instance, TCI does not collect
information and record in a document specifically who collects mail from the inmate
mailbox, the names of every person who handles inmate mail, and the specific dates of
when mail is picked up from the inmate mailbox.” She indicated that she made redactions
to the mail log and Post Order due to security concerns, since “[d]isclosure of this
PAGE 3 OF 8
Case No. 2024-T-0046 information could subject the prison staff, incarcerated population, and public to risk of
their safety.”
{¶6} Tenney has not filed a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
{¶7} To be entitled to summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate
“there is no genuine issue as to any material fact;” it is “entitled to judgment as a matter
of law;” and “reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is
adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party
being entitled to have the evidence . . . construed most strongly in the party’s favor.”
Civ.R. 56(C).
{¶8} Generally, a relator must be able to satisfy the following three elements to
be entitled to a writ of mandamus: “(1) the relator must have a clear legal right to have
the public official perform a particular act; (2) the official must have a clear legal duty to
do the act; and (3) the relator does not have another adequate remedy at law.” State ex
rel. Brown v. Logan, 2004-Ohio-6951, ¶ 4 (11th Dist.), citing State ex rel. Greene v.
Enright, 63 Ohio St.3d 729 (1992). “The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that mandamus
is the appropriate remedy to force compliance with the public records statute.” State ex
rel. Tenney v. Rice, 2023-Ohio-4269, ¶ 6 (11th Dist.), citing State ex rel. McGowan v.
Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 78 Ohio St.3d 518, 520 (1997). “Thus, persons seeking
public records need not establish the lack of an adequate remedy at law in order to be
entitled to a writ of mandamus.” Id.; State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer, 2021-Ohio-1419,
¶ 10 (to obtain a writ, “the requester must prove by clear and convincing evidence a clear
legal right to the record and a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the respondent
to provide it”).
PAGE 4 OF 8
Case No. 2024-T-0046 {¶9} “[U]pon request by any person, a public office or person responsible for
public records shall make copies of the requested public record available to the requester
at cost and within a reasonable period of time.” R.C. 149.43(B)(1). There is no question
that Tenney made a request for records and that Kleinknecht, the individual responsible
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State ex rel. Tenney v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2025-Ohio-1602.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO ex rel. CASE NO. 2024-T-0046 MICHAEL TENNEY,
Relator, Original Action for Writ of Mandamus
- vs -
OHIO DEP'T OF REHAB. & CORR.,
Respondent.
PER CURIAM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: May 5, 2025 Judgment: Petition denied
Michael Tenney, pro se, PID# A704-630, Belmont Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 540, St. Clairsville, OH 43950 (Relator).
Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, State Office Tower, 30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215, D. Chadd McKitrick, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Adam J. Beckler, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Justice Section, 30 East Broad Street, 23rd Floor, Columbus, OH 43215 (For Respondent).
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Pending before this court is relator, Michael Tenney’s, “Mandamus Action
Pursuant to R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(b).” Respondent, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction (ODRC) has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. For the following
reasons, we grant ODRC’s Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Tenney’s
“Mandamus Action.”
{¶2} On May 28, 2024, Tenney filed his “Mandamus Action.” Therein, Tenney, who was a prisoner at the Trumbull Correctional Institution, asserted that he had
requested public records from the Warden’s assistant relating to prison mail but that he
was provided only “a small portion of the records available” and did not receive
information about the identity of every person who handled the mail. Attached was
Tenney’s records request, in which he indicated that he had not timely received tracking
information for certified mail. He further stated: “I am requesting public records
electronically, pursuant to R.C. 149.43 in regards to all the mail that I . . . have sent and
paid for ‘certified’ as well as any postage I have paid for. To be specific, I am requesting
any and all documentation from [A]pril 20th 2023 to [A]pril 20[,] 2024 of the
aforementioned including dates the mail was picked up from the TC[I] inmate mail box,
every person who has handled the aforementioned mail, the date the funds were
processed, the person who processed the funds and finally, the dates the mail was sent
to the post office.” In the present action, Tenney requests that the respondent be ordered
to comply with R.C. 149.43 to provide all records and argues he is entitled to statutory
damages for the failure to do so.
{¶3} ODRC filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint on June 25, 2024, on grounds
relating to Tenney’s failure to provide documentation necessary to proceed on a
mandamus action. This court issued a Judgment Entry on August 2, 2024, overruling the
Motion to Dismiss. ODRC subsequently filed an Answer. Following a status conference,
this court issued an entry setting the timeline for filing dispositive motions.
{¶4} On January 9, 2025, ODRC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. ODRC
argues that it provided documents responsive to Tenney’s public records request, it
cannot provide him with documents that do not exist, and it redacted documents including
PAGE 2 OF 8
Case No. 2024-T-0046 other inmates’ information due to safety concerns. Attached to the Motion was the
affidavit of Cheri Kleinknecht, the Warden’s Administrative Assistant at Trumbull
Correctional Institution and its Public Information Officer who oversees requests for public
records. She attested that she received the electronic request from Tenney and that it
“appeared to stem from an issue he had pertaining [to] legal mail he had sent.” Three
days after the request, she responded to him, stating that “any responsive records will be
provided at .05 cents per page” and forwarded his concerns regarding the processing of
his mail to the mailroom supervisor. She averred that she researched TCI records, and
two weeks after his request, she “delivered to Mr. Tenney all documents available at TCI
that were responsive to his request and not confidential under Ohio law” as well as a
cover letter to explain which records were available, withheld, or redacted.
{¶5} According to the affidavit and attachments, the records Kleinknecht
provided to Tenney are: a redacted mail log from February 9, 2023, to April 20, 2024,
which contained information about only Tenney’s mail sent during that time; an “Inmate
Demand Statement” from April 20, 2023 through April 24, 2024, showing Tenney’s
account expenses including postage; and page 24 of “Post Orders” for the “Rover 1”
corrections officer position, which specified that the Rover collected inmate mail from a
mailbox and delivered it to the shift supervisor. Kleinknecht attested that she found no
other documents responsive to Tenney’s requests: “For instance, TCI does not collect
information and record in a document specifically who collects mail from the inmate
mailbox, the names of every person who handles inmate mail, and the specific dates of
when mail is picked up from the inmate mailbox.” She indicated that she made redactions
to the mail log and Post Order due to security concerns, since “[d]isclosure of this
PAGE 3 OF 8
Case No. 2024-T-0046 information could subject the prison staff, incarcerated population, and public to risk of
their safety.”
{¶6} Tenney has not filed a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
{¶7} To be entitled to summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate
“there is no genuine issue as to any material fact;” it is “entitled to judgment as a matter
of law;” and “reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is
adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party
being entitled to have the evidence . . . construed most strongly in the party’s favor.”
Civ.R. 56(C).
{¶8} Generally, a relator must be able to satisfy the following three elements to
be entitled to a writ of mandamus: “(1) the relator must have a clear legal right to have
the public official perform a particular act; (2) the official must have a clear legal duty to
do the act; and (3) the relator does not have another adequate remedy at law.” State ex
rel. Brown v. Logan, 2004-Ohio-6951, ¶ 4 (11th Dist.), citing State ex rel. Greene v.
Enright, 63 Ohio St.3d 729 (1992). “The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that mandamus
is the appropriate remedy to force compliance with the public records statute.” State ex
rel. Tenney v. Rice, 2023-Ohio-4269, ¶ 6 (11th Dist.), citing State ex rel. McGowan v.
Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 78 Ohio St.3d 518, 520 (1997). “Thus, persons seeking
public records need not establish the lack of an adequate remedy at law in order to be
entitled to a writ of mandamus.” Id.; State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer, 2021-Ohio-1419,
¶ 10 (to obtain a writ, “the requester must prove by clear and convincing evidence a clear
legal right to the record and a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the respondent
to provide it”).
PAGE 4 OF 8
Case No. 2024-T-0046 {¶9} “[U]pon request by any person, a public office or person responsible for
public records shall make copies of the requested public record available to the requester
at cost and within a reasonable period of time.” R.C. 149.43(B)(1). There is no question
that Tenney made a request for records and that Kleinknecht, the individual responsible
for providing TCI records, supplied some documents. He was provided information about
his own mail dates and expense account statements showing his payment of postage
costs. He was also provided a policy explaining the position of an individual who collects
mail. Tenney argues, however, that he was not provided with all relevant records,
particularly information about “dates the mail was picked up and every person who
handled the mail.”
{¶10} Pursuant to Kleinknecht’s affidavit and records submitted, ODRC claims
that the foregoing documents were the only existing records pertinent to his request.
While Tenney argues he was not provided with specific details such as the names of all
people handling prison mail, Kleinknecht asserted in her affidavit that “TCI does not
collect information and record in a document specifically who collects mail from the inmate
mailbox, the names of every person who handles inmate mail, and the specific dates of
when mail is picked up from the inmate mailbox.” Further, she stated that she “delivered
to Mr. Tenney all the documents available at TCI that were responsive to his request and
not confidential under Ohio law.” “A public office may establish by affidavit that all existing
public records have been provided.” State ex rel. Howson v. Delaware Cty. Sheriff’s
Office, 2023-Ohio-1440, ¶ 18; State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Port
Auth., 2009-Ohio-1767, ¶ 15. “The requester may rebut the affidavit showing, by clear
and convincing evidence, an issue of fact regarding whether additional responsive
PAGE 5 OF 8
Case No. 2024-T-0046 records exist or that they were not delivered.” State ex rel. Chester v. Booth, 2024-Ohio-
1858, ¶ 8 (11th Dist.). “If the requester does not rebut the public office’s evidence that it
responded fully to the public-records request, this court will deny the writ.” Id. at ¶ 9, citing
Howson at ¶ 18.
{¶11} Tenney has not rebutted the evidence that ODRC fully responded to the
public records request as is required. Certain records were provided, such as the job
duties for a “Rover” which included picking up mail and providing it to a shift supervisor,
and it was alleged that other records relating to who collected the mail did not exist. “The
Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, does not require that a public office create documents
to meet a requester’s demands.” State ex rel. Spivey v. Lauger, 2023-Ohio-888, ¶ 9 (11th
Dist.), citing State ex rel. Mayrides v. Whitehall, 62 Ohio St.3d 203 (1991).
{¶12} Kleinknecht’s affidavit further contends that information from the mail logs
provided to Tenney contained redactions because he was not permitted to review other
inmates’ mail log records or information. Tenney does not set forth a claim that he
requested or was denied information relating to other inmate’s mail but instead that he
was not provided the dates mail was picked up and the name of everyone who picked up
mail. The dates were not redacted from the log, so there is no dispute that the log
complied with the date request. The name of the person who picked up the mail was not
information recorded on the log. Nonetheless, we observe that “records of inmates
committed to the department of rehabilitation and correction . . . shall not be considered
as public records as defined in section 149.43 of the Revised Code.” R.C. 5120.21(F).
The ODRC may withhold or redact records that are not public or that “disclose inmate
information about inmates other than relator pursuant to R.C. 5120.21(F).” State ex rel.
PAGE 6 OF 8
Case No. 2024-T-0046 McCarley v. Dept. of Rehab. and Corr., 2022-Ohio-3397, ¶ 34 (10th Dist.).
{¶13} In summary, ODRC has demonstrated via affidavit testimony that it has
provided all existing and responsive public records relating to Tenney’s request.
Tenney’s failure to rebut any of the ODRC’s assertions necessitates denial of the writ.
Chester, 2024-Ohio-1858, at ¶ 9 (11th Dist.).
{¶14} For the foregoing reasons, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and Tenney’s “Mandamus Action”
is denied.
JOHN J. EKLUND, J., EUGENE A. LUCCI, J., SCOTT LYNCH, J., concur.
PAGE 7 OF 8
Case No. 2024-T-0046 JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the Per Curiam Opinion of this court, respondent’s Motion
for Summary Judgment is granted. Relator’s “Mandamus Action Pursuant to R.C.
149.43(C)(1)(b)” is denied. Costs to be taxed against relator.
JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND, concurs
JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI, concurs
JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH, concurs
THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PAGE 8 OF 8
Case No. 2024-T-0046