[Cite as Strothers v. Mayor of E. Cleveland, 2011-Ohio-3694.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96147
GERALD O. STROTHERS, JR. RELATOR
vs.
MAYOR OF EAST CLEVELAND, OHIO GARY NORTON, JR. RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED; STATUTORY DAMAGES AWARDED
Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 440450 Order No. 446174 RELEASE DATE: July 26, 2011
FOR RELATOR
Gerald O. Strothers, Jr., pro se 14019 Northfield Avenue East Cleveland, Ohio 44112
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
Ronald K. Riley Director of Law City of East Cleveland 14340 Euclid Avenue East Cleveland, Ohio 44112
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.:
{¶ 1} Relator, Gerald O. Strothers, Jr., requests that this court compel
respondent, Gary Norton, Jr., Mayor of East Cleveland (“the mayor”), “to
provide access to review, inspect and copy ‘at cost’” various records.
Complaint, at 4. Strothers also requests that this court award statutory
damages for the delay in making the records available to him. For the
reasons stated below, we deny his request for relief in mandamus and enter
judgment for statutory damages in the amount of $1,000. {¶ 2} Strothers sent a letter to the mayor requesting records relating to
the operation of the East Cleveland jail including: food service; laundry
service; financial records; purchases of jail bedding; plumbing repairs;
medical care and dispensing medications; extermination contracts; jail policy
regarding various prisoner rights and treatment of prisoners; and state and
county inspection reports. The letter was dated December 1, 2010. The
certified mail return receipt indicates that it was received on December 2,
2010.
{¶ 3} Strothers filed the complaint in this action on December 9, 2010.
On December 27, 2010, the mayor filed a “response” in which he argues that
he had not been provided a reasonable opportunity to respond to the request
for records when Strothers filed this action. Also on December 27, Strothers
filed a motion for summary judgment.
{¶ 4} On April 13, 2011, this court ordered the parties to each file an
inventory listing the category of records requested and whether and to what
extent respondent had made the records available. Each party responded.
{¶ 5} In his inventory, Strothers attempts to expand the scope of this
action to include records regarding East Cleveland’s use of traffic cameras.
He requested these records in a December 21, 2010 letter to the mayor and
members of the city council. Although this letter is attached to his motion
for summary judgment, Strothers has not moved to amend his complaint to include this additional request for records, which occurred after the filing of
this action on December 9, 2010. See Civ.R. 15. As a consequence, we hold
that the scope of this action is limited to the request for records in the
December 1, 2010 letter.
{¶ 6} Strothers acknowledges that he has received records. He
contends, however, that he has not received all or the correct records. We
note, however, that none of these representations is made in an affidavit or
other material of evidentiary quality.
{¶ 7} By contrast, the mayor filed a “supplemental response,” which is
supported by the affidavit of Brenda L. Blanks, Executive Assistant/Paralegal
to the city’s law director. Blanks avers that she was responsible for
responding to the request for records.
{¶ 8} In her affidavit, Blanks states that she mailed records to
Strothers. The accompanying copy of a certified mail receipt reflects that,
although the records were sent to the same address that Strothers used in
filing this action, the item was returned “unclaimed.” She also avers that,
although she and the law director have invited Strothers by telephone and by
letter to schedule an appointment to examine records, he has not done so.
{¶ 9} Blanks also refers to respondent’s inventory of records made
available to Strothers. The inventory accompanies the “supplemental response” and reflects that records were transmitted to Strothers primarily
on December 21, 2010 but also on January 13, 18 and 25, 2011.
{¶ 10} R.C. 149.43 establishes the standards for making public records
available. “That statute specifies two primary means of providing access to
public records: (1) making the records ‘available for inspection to any person
at all reasonable times during regular business hours’ and (2) making ‘copies
of the requested record[s] available at cost and within a reasonable time.’ R.C.
149.43(B)(1).” State ex rel. Patton v. Rhodes, __ Ohio St.3d __,
2011-Ohio-3093, __ N.E.2d __, at ¶15.
{¶ 11} As noted above, Blanks represents that the mayor has provided to
Strothers either copies of the records he requested or the opportunity to
inspect the records during regular business hours. She also avers that
Strothers has not acted on the opportunities to inspect records and that
copies of records that were mailed to him were returned “unclaimed.”
Strothers has not submitted any material of evidentiary quality to rebut the
averments by Blanks.
{¶ 12} The evidence in the record in this action indicates that the mayor
has made the records available to Strothers by providing him copies as well
as the opportunity to inspect the records. We must conclude, therefore, that
respondent has discharged his duty to make the records available to Strothers. As a consequence, we deny the request for relief in mandamus as
moot.
{¶ 13} Strothers has also requested that this court award statutory
damages.
{¶ 14} “If a requestor transmits a written request by hand delivery or
certified mail to inspect or receive copies of any public record in a manner
that fairly describes the public record or class of public records to the public
office or person responsible for the requested public records, except as
otherwise provided in this section, the requestor shall be entitled to recover
the amount of statutory damages set forth in this division if a court
determines that the public office or the person responsible for public records
failed to comply with an obligation in accordance with division (B) of this
section.” R.C. 149.43(C)(1).
{¶ 15} Strothers contends that the mayor did not timely make the
records available. R.C. 149.43(B)(1) provides, in part: “a public office or
person responsible for public records shall make copies of the requested
public record available at cost and within a reasonable period of time.”
{¶ 16} The mayor received the request for records on December 2, 2010.
Strothers filed this action on December 9. The first delivery of records was
on December 21. Additional transmittals of records occurred on January 13,
18 and 25, 2011. In a letter from the law director dated February 11, 2011, Strothers was advised to contact Blanks “to arrange a day for any future
visits to review, inspect and/or copy records.” Blanks Affidavit, at 10.
{¶ 17} The record in this case, therefore, reflects that the mayor did not
fully respond to the public records request by Strothers for at least seven
weeks after receipt of the request and more than a month after Strothers
commenced this action. Strothers contends that the mayor did not make the
records available “within a reasonable period of time” as required by R.C.
149.43(B)(1).
{¶ 18} In State ex rel. Bardwell v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Strothers v. Mayor of E. Cleveland, 2011-Ohio-3694.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96147
GERALD O. STROTHERS, JR. RELATOR
vs.
MAYOR OF EAST CLEVELAND, OHIO GARY NORTON, JR. RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED; STATUTORY DAMAGES AWARDED
Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 440450 Order No. 446174 RELEASE DATE: July 26, 2011
FOR RELATOR
Gerald O. Strothers, Jr., pro se 14019 Northfield Avenue East Cleveland, Ohio 44112
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
Ronald K. Riley Director of Law City of East Cleveland 14340 Euclid Avenue East Cleveland, Ohio 44112
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.:
{¶ 1} Relator, Gerald O. Strothers, Jr., requests that this court compel
respondent, Gary Norton, Jr., Mayor of East Cleveland (“the mayor”), “to
provide access to review, inspect and copy ‘at cost’” various records.
Complaint, at 4. Strothers also requests that this court award statutory
damages for the delay in making the records available to him. For the
reasons stated below, we deny his request for relief in mandamus and enter
judgment for statutory damages in the amount of $1,000. {¶ 2} Strothers sent a letter to the mayor requesting records relating to
the operation of the East Cleveland jail including: food service; laundry
service; financial records; purchases of jail bedding; plumbing repairs;
medical care and dispensing medications; extermination contracts; jail policy
regarding various prisoner rights and treatment of prisoners; and state and
county inspection reports. The letter was dated December 1, 2010. The
certified mail return receipt indicates that it was received on December 2,
2010.
{¶ 3} Strothers filed the complaint in this action on December 9, 2010.
On December 27, 2010, the mayor filed a “response” in which he argues that
he had not been provided a reasonable opportunity to respond to the request
for records when Strothers filed this action. Also on December 27, Strothers
filed a motion for summary judgment.
{¶ 4} On April 13, 2011, this court ordered the parties to each file an
inventory listing the category of records requested and whether and to what
extent respondent had made the records available. Each party responded.
{¶ 5} In his inventory, Strothers attempts to expand the scope of this
action to include records regarding East Cleveland’s use of traffic cameras.
He requested these records in a December 21, 2010 letter to the mayor and
members of the city council. Although this letter is attached to his motion
for summary judgment, Strothers has not moved to amend his complaint to include this additional request for records, which occurred after the filing of
this action on December 9, 2010. See Civ.R. 15. As a consequence, we hold
that the scope of this action is limited to the request for records in the
December 1, 2010 letter.
{¶ 6} Strothers acknowledges that he has received records. He
contends, however, that he has not received all or the correct records. We
note, however, that none of these representations is made in an affidavit or
other material of evidentiary quality.
{¶ 7} By contrast, the mayor filed a “supplemental response,” which is
supported by the affidavit of Brenda L. Blanks, Executive Assistant/Paralegal
to the city’s law director. Blanks avers that she was responsible for
responding to the request for records.
{¶ 8} In her affidavit, Blanks states that she mailed records to
Strothers. The accompanying copy of a certified mail receipt reflects that,
although the records were sent to the same address that Strothers used in
filing this action, the item was returned “unclaimed.” She also avers that,
although she and the law director have invited Strothers by telephone and by
letter to schedule an appointment to examine records, he has not done so.
{¶ 9} Blanks also refers to respondent’s inventory of records made
available to Strothers. The inventory accompanies the “supplemental response” and reflects that records were transmitted to Strothers primarily
on December 21, 2010 but also on January 13, 18 and 25, 2011.
{¶ 10} R.C. 149.43 establishes the standards for making public records
available. “That statute specifies two primary means of providing access to
public records: (1) making the records ‘available for inspection to any person
at all reasonable times during regular business hours’ and (2) making ‘copies
of the requested record[s] available at cost and within a reasonable time.’ R.C.
149.43(B)(1).” State ex rel. Patton v. Rhodes, __ Ohio St.3d __,
2011-Ohio-3093, __ N.E.2d __, at ¶15.
{¶ 11} As noted above, Blanks represents that the mayor has provided to
Strothers either copies of the records he requested or the opportunity to
inspect the records during regular business hours. She also avers that
Strothers has not acted on the opportunities to inspect records and that
copies of records that were mailed to him were returned “unclaimed.”
Strothers has not submitted any material of evidentiary quality to rebut the
averments by Blanks.
{¶ 12} The evidence in the record in this action indicates that the mayor
has made the records available to Strothers by providing him copies as well
as the opportunity to inspect the records. We must conclude, therefore, that
respondent has discharged his duty to make the records available to Strothers. As a consequence, we deny the request for relief in mandamus as
moot.
{¶ 13} Strothers has also requested that this court award statutory
damages.
{¶ 14} “If a requestor transmits a written request by hand delivery or
certified mail to inspect or receive copies of any public record in a manner
that fairly describes the public record or class of public records to the public
office or person responsible for the requested public records, except as
otherwise provided in this section, the requestor shall be entitled to recover
the amount of statutory damages set forth in this division if a court
determines that the public office or the person responsible for public records
failed to comply with an obligation in accordance with division (B) of this
section.” R.C. 149.43(C)(1).
{¶ 15} Strothers contends that the mayor did not timely make the
records available. R.C. 149.43(B)(1) provides, in part: “a public office or
person responsible for public records shall make copies of the requested
public record available at cost and within a reasonable period of time.”
{¶ 16} The mayor received the request for records on December 2, 2010.
Strothers filed this action on December 9. The first delivery of records was
on December 21. Additional transmittals of records occurred on January 13,
18 and 25, 2011. In a letter from the law director dated February 11, 2011, Strothers was advised to contact Blanks “to arrange a day for any future
visits to review, inspect and/or copy records.” Blanks Affidavit, at 10.
{¶ 17} The record in this case, therefore, reflects that the mayor did not
fully respond to the public records request by Strothers for at least seven
weeks after receipt of the request and more than a month after Strothers
commenced this action. Strothers contends that the mayor did not make the
records available “within a reasonable period of time” as required by R.C.
149.43(B)(1).
{¶ 18} In State ex rel. Bardwell v. Rocky River Police Dept., Cuyahoga
App. No. 91022, 2009-Ohio-727, the relator hand-delivered a public records
request on January 18, 2008. The respondents transmitted records between
February 7 and March 28, 2008. We observed that 45 days (32 business
days) elapsed between the filing of the action in mandamus and the
transmittal of the last record. As a consequence, we entered judgment for
the maximum amount of statutory damages — $1,000.
{¶ 19} “The amount of statutory damages shall be fixed at one hundred
dollars for each business day during which the public office or person
responsible for the requested public records failed to comply with an
obligation in accordance with division (B) of this section, beginning with the
day on which the requester files a mandamus action to recover statutory
damages, up to a maximum of one thousand dollars. The award of statutory damages shall not be construed as a penalty, but as compensation for injury
arising from lost use of the requested information. The existence of this injury
shall be conclusively presumed. The award of statutory damages shall be in
addition to all other remedies authorized by this section.” R.C. 149.43(C)(1).
{¶ 20} The mayor has not presented to this court any authority for
delaying the release of the records for 12 to 47 calendar days after the filing of
this action on December 9, 2010. Clearly, some of the records were made
available to Strothers more than ten calendar days after the filing of this
action. The language of R.C. 149.43(C)(1) is clear and Bardwell exemplifies
that we must enter judgment for Strothers in the amount of $1,000 for
statutory damages.1
{¶ 21} Accordingly, relator’s motion for summary judgment for relief in
mandamus to compel the mayor to make records available is denied.
Judgment for Strothers in the amount of $1,000 statutory damages.
Additionally, we note that the complaint has various defects. The action is not on relation 1
of the state as required for an action in mandamus by R.C. 2731.04. State v. Grunden, Cuyahoga App. No. 96114, 2011-Ohio-744. Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) requires that a complaint in an original action be verified and supported by an affidavit specifying the details of the claims. Strothers filed an affidavit that states, “the statements made in the Petition are proper and true.” “It is well-established that a relator’s conclusory statement in an affidavit does not comply with the requirement of Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) that an affidavit specify the details of the claim. Failure to do so is a basis for denying relief. See, e.g., State ex rel. Castro v. Corrigan, Cuyahoga App. No. 96488, 2011-Ohio-1701.” State ex rel. Wright v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga App. No. 96397, 2011-Ohio-2159, at ¶4. Respondent to pay costs. The clerk is directed to serve upon the parties
notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B).
Writ denied; statutory damages awarded.
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, A.J., CONCURS; MELODY J. STEWART, J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART (SEE SEPARATE OPINION)
MELODY J. STEWART, J., CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART:
{¶ 22} I agree that the city of East Cleveland has produced the records
requested by Strothers for the reasons stated in the majority opinion and that
the writ is properly denied. I disagree, however, with the majority’s finding
that the city did not produce those records within a reasonable period of time
and consequently disagree with the majority decision to award statutory
{¶ 23} The rote application of the 45-day standard applied in State ex
rel. Bardwell v. Rocky River Police Dept., 8th Dist. No. 91022, 2009-Ohio-727,
is wholly contrary to the statutory directive that public records be turned over
within a “reasonable” time. The concept of “reasonableness” under R.C.
149.43(B)(1) is elastic, not static, and at all events depends on the particular
facts and circumstances of each case. In Bardwell, we concluded that 45 days to respond to a records request seeking certain police logs expense
account records for a two-month period was too long.
{¶ 24} Strothers sought significantly more records covering a larger
period of time in this case. He requested two years of records for contracts
relating to food services at the city jail; contracts relating to laundry service;
financial records paid to “outside contractors” including “bid requests,
proposals and resumes of any winning and non-winning bidder(s)”; records
documenting all purchases of jail bedding, pads and sheets; records of bid
requests for jail “plumbing problems” including repairs made by in-house
custodians and “all plumbing invoices minor or major”; records showing
certification to provide medical care and dispensation of medications by jail
personnel; records relating to contracts for extermination services, including
“service calls from outside professional and non-professional exterminators”;
jail policy pertaining to prisoner access to telephones, showers, exercise or
recreation; inspection reports from state or county offices tasked with
monitoring jail conditions; and jail policies relating to prisoner treatment,
medical care, and discipline encompassing prisoner control by non-lethal
means or confinement with handcuffs or chains.
{¶ 25} Any rational application of the reasonable time standard set forth
in R.C. 149.43(B)(1) would show that the records request in this case was far
more onerous than that made in Bardwell. Unlike the two-month time period for which records were sought in Bardwell, Strothers sought, without
time limitation, virtually every record documenting the operation of the East
Cleveland jail. Indeed, Strothers himself acknowledged in the records
request that “I realize that this is a large request of documents * * *.” We
might also acknowledge that Strothers made his records request toward the
end of the year and approaching the Christmas and New Year holidays when
it could reasonably be presumed that offices were understaffed. But despite
acknowledging that he requested a large number of documents, Strothers
filed this complaint in mandamus just eight days after the city received his
request. These facts make Strothers less a good-faith victim of delay in
producing public records and more an opportunist seeking to manipulate the
statutory damages provisions of the public records law. Given the
circumstances described, I would find that the city’s production of all
requested documents within 47 days was certainly accomplished within a
reasonable period of time.