State ex rel. Bloodworth v. Toledo Corr. Inst. , 2022 Ohio 346 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State ex rel. Bloodworth v. Toledo Corr. Inst., 2022-Ohio-346.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio, ex rel. Ronald Court of Appeals No. L-21-1146
Bloodworth
Relator
v.
Toledo Correctional Institution, et al. DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Respondents Decided: February 2, 2022
*****
Ronald Bloodworth, Pro se.
Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, and
Mark W. Altier, Principal Assistant Attorney
General, for respondents.
*****
MAYLE, J.
{¶ 1} This case is before the court upon the brief of respondents, Toledo
Correctional Institution (“TCI”) and Sonrisa Sehlmeyer, filed on December 15, 2021,
under 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 6(B). Relator, Ronald Bloodworth, has not filed a brief. For
the following reasons, we dismiss Bloodworth’s complaint for writ of mandamus.
{¶ 2} Bloodworth is an inmate at TCI. On August 4, 2021, he filed a complaint
for a writ of mandamus under R.C. Chapter 2731, asking that we order respondents to
provide records he sought under R.C. 149.43. Among the records he requested were
outgoing legal mail logs, cash slips, and monthly mail reports for Lebanon Correctional
Institution (“LCI”) for specified time periods. He maintained that these documents had
not been produced.
{¶ 3} In a decision dated August 26, 2021, we issued an alternative writ requiring
respondents to either do the act requested by relator in the petition or show cause why
they are not required to do so by filing an answer to relator’s petition pursuant to Civ.R.
8(B) or a motion to dismiss relator’s petition pursuant to Civ.R. 12.
{¶ 4} Respondents filed a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. They argued in their motion that
Bloodworth’s complaint and the documents attached to it demonstrate that the records he
requested are maintained not by TCI, but by LCI. Respondents claimed that they are not
the persons or entities responsible for maintaining the records for LCI, therefore,
Bloodworth’s complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
{¶ 5} We denied respondents’ motion because they failed to either (1) cite
authority indicating that Sehlmeyer was not responsible for responding to requests for
LCI records, or (2) file a motion for summary judgment attaching affidavits and exhibits
2.
demonstrating that Sehlmeyer is not the person responsible for the relevant public
records. Because they failed to do so, we could not conclude that Bloodworth’s
complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
{¶ 6} Respondents have now filed a merit brief under 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 6(B).
In support of their brief, they submitted an affidavit from Sehlmeyer, averring that she is
responsible for responding to public records requests for records maintained by TCI and
is not responsible for public records requests for records maintained by entities other than
TCI. Respondents submit, therefore, that they were not responsible for providing
Bloodworth the LCI records he requested.
{¶ 7} Respondents also submitted the affidavit of attorney Mark W. Altier, stating
that respondents sent a letter to Bloodworth on November 23, 2021, attaching the
documents he requested from LCI, and that respondents have heard nothing further from
Bloodworth since providing those records. They insist that this has mooted this action.
{¶ 8} As previously alluded to, Bloodworth has not filed his own brief. As such,
he has not challenged respondents’ claim that they were not responsible for responding to
public records requests for documents maintained by entities other than TCI. He has also
not challenged respondents’ claim that his complaint is now moot because respondents
provided the records he requested. Because respondents’ position here is unchallenged—
and because it is consistent with our decision in State ex rel. Keating v. Skeldon, 6th Dist.
Lucas No. L-08-1414, 2009-Ohio-2052, ¶ 8-16 (granting certain respondents’ motion for
3.
summary judgment which attached affidavits and exhibits averring that they were not the
persons responsible for responding to the public records requests at issue)—we accept
their assertions and dismiss Bloodworth’s complaint.
{¶ 9} It is so ordered.
{¶ 10} The costs of this matter are to be shared equally amongst the parties.
{¶ 11} The clerk is directed to serve upon the parties, within three days, a copy of
this decision in a manner prescribed by Civ.R. 5(B).
Writ dismissed.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.
____________________________
Myron C. Duhart, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
____________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
4.