Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Trumbull
STATE OF OHIO ex rel. VINCENT EL ALAN PARKER BEY, Relator,
JULIE LOOMIS, et al., Respondents.
Original Action for Writ of Mandamus.
Vincent El Alan Parker Bey, pro se, (Relator).
Yost, Ohio Attorney General, and Jared Sun Yee, Assistant
Attorney General, Criminal Justice Section, Corrections Unit,
In this original action, relator, Vincent El Alan Parker Bey,
seeks a writ of mandamus against respondents, Julie Loomis,
the administrative assistant for the warden of the Trumbull
Correctional Institution, and the Trumbull Correctional
Institution, to compel the production of public records. In
addition, relator seeks an award of statutory damages and
For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the petition
because this claim is moot. We also deny his request for
statutory damages and costs since we find respondents
complied with relator's request prior to his filing of
Relator is an inmate at the Trumbull Correctional
Institution. He alleges that on March 5, 2019, he made a
public records request for "a copy of the legal mail log
for the months of January and February of 2019," and
"a copy of the dates and times that the institutional
inspector makes rounds in the housing units for the months of
December, 2018, January and February 2019." He further
alleges that respondents illegally seized his certified mail
and that they only partially complied with his public records
request as the direct result of a grievance. He acknowledged
that he received copies of the legal mailroom logs on April
11, 2019, but alleges he did not receive a written
explanation as to why his public records request for the
institutional inspector logs was denied.
In response to relator's petition, respondents filed a
motion to dismiss, asserting relator's claim is moot
because they have complied with relator's public records
request pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B). Attached to
respondent's motion to dismiss were two letters that were
previously sent to relator. The first requested additional
information as to the institutional inspector logs so the
specific logs relator sought could be identified. Relator
failed to respond to this request. The second letter was
provided as a result of a grievance and accompanied the mail
room logs. It explained that institutional inspector logs,
without more, are not public records. Thus, that portion of
relator's request was denied by respondents.
To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the relator in such an
action must establish by clear and convincing evidence:
"(1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a
clear legal duty on the part of the respondent to provide it,
and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of the law." State ex rel. Martin v. Greene,
-Ohio St.3d, 2019-Ohio-1827, ¶6, citing State ex
rel. Love v. O'Donnell, 150 Ohio St.3d 378,
2017-Ohio-5659, ¶3. "'Mandamus will not lie to
compel an act that has already been performed.'"
Id., quoting State ex rel. Martin v.
Buchanan, 152 Ohio St.3d 68, 2017-Ohio-9163, ¶5,
quoting State ex rel. Eubank v. McDonald, 135 Ohio
St.3d 186, 2013-Ohio-72, ¶1.
In general, a public records mandamus case becomes moot when
the public office provides the requested records. (Citation
omitted.) Id. at ¶7. See also State ex rel.
Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ronan, 124 Ohio St.3d 17,
2009-Ohio-5947, ¶4 (2019) (mandamus complaint was moot
because school district had produced the requested records).
The evidence submitted by respondents demonstrates that
relator has received the documents he requested and that
respondents complied with R.C. 149.43 in fulfilling
relator's request. See R.C. 149.43(B)(3)
("If a request is ultimately denied, in part or in
whole, the public office or the person responsible for the
requested public record shall provide the requester with an
explanation, including legal authority, setting forth why the
request was denied").
Relator filed a reply brief, but failed to introduce any
evidence that respondents have not complied with his request.
We therefore deny the petition for a writ of mandamus as
Because we do not find respondents failed to comply with
relator's public records request, we also deny
relator's demand for statutory damages and court costs
pursuant to R.C. 149.43(C)(2) ("the requester shall be
entitled to recover the amount of statutory damages * * * 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
Therefore, dismissal is warranted under Civ.R. 12(B)(6)
because respondents have fulfilled their legal duty to act
when they ...