State ex rel. Edmonds v. Cleveland Mun. Clerk of Court

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State ex rel. Edmonds v. Cleveland Mun. Clerk of Court, 2020-Ohio-1630.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA STATE OF OHIO EX REL. MARIO EDMONDS, : Relator, : No. 109333 v. : CITY OF CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL CLERK OF COURTS, : Respondent. : JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED DATED: April 17, 2020 Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 536523 Order No. 537782 Appearances: Mario Edmonds, pro se. Barbara A. Langhenry, Cleveland Director of Law, and Amy K. Habinski, Assistant Director of Law, for respondent. MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J.: Mario Edmonds has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Edmonds seeks an order from this court that compels the city of Cleveland Municipal Clerk of Court (“Clerk”) to provide him with a copy of the criminal complaint filed in Cleveland v. Edmonds, Cleveland M.C. No. 2015-CRA-001312. The Clerk has filed a Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment of the pleadings that is granted for the following reasons. Attached to the motion for judgment on the pleadings is a copy of the criminal complaint, filed in Cleveland M.C. No. 2015-CRA-001312, which was mailed to Edmonds on February 27, 2020. Relief is unwarranted because mandamus will not compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed. State ex rel. Williams v. Croce, 153 Ohio St.3d 348, 2018-Ohio-2703, 106 N.E.3d 55; State ex rel. Hopson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 135 Ohio St.3d 456, 2013-Ohio-1911, 989 N.E.2d 49; State ex rel. Fontanella v. Kontos, 117 Ohio St.3d 514, 2008-Ohio-1431, 885 N.E.2d 220. In addition, Edmonds relied upon R.C. 149.43, the Ohio Public Records Act, in his attempt to obtain the requested record. However, R.C. 149.43 is not applicable to Edmonds’s request for a copy of the complaint filed in Cleveland M.C. No. 2015-CRA-001312. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that: However, the Public Records Act is inapplicable to this case. ‘Sup.R. 44 through 47 deal specifically with the procedures regulating public access to court records and are the sole vehicle for obtaining records in actions commenced after July 1, 2009.’ State ex rel. Richfield v. Laria, 138 Ohio St.3d 168, 2014-Ohio-243, 4 N.E.3d 1040, ¶ 8. Because the Public Records Act is inapplicable to his request for court records, [relator] must seek relief under the Rules of Superintendence. State ex rel. Harris v. Pureval, 155 Ohio St.3d 343, 2018-Ohio-4718, 121 N.E.3d 337, ¶ 10. Edmonds has not sought relief pursuant to the Ohio Rules of Superintendence, nor has he indicated that he is entitled to the requested record pursuant to the Ohio Rules of Superintendence. Finally, even if the request for the record was properly made under the Ohio Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43(B)(8) would prevent Edmonds from obtaining the record because no leave of court was obtained from the trial court that sentenced Edmonds to a period of incarceration in State v. Edmonds, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-15-596373. The Supreme Court of Ohio, in State ex rel. Ellis v. Cleveland Police Forensic Laboratory, 157 Ohio St.3d 483, 2019-Ohio-4201, 137 N.E.3d 1171, confirmed the applicability of R.C. 149.43(B) to any inmate that requests a public record. Thus, even if Edmonds properly invoked R.C 149.43 to obtain the requested record, his complaint for a writ of mandamus would fail because he did not seek leave from the trial court to obtain the requested record. State ex rel. Ellis v. Cleveland Police Forensic Laboratory, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107571, 2019-Ohio710; State ex rel. Rittner v. Barber, 6th Dist. Fulton No. F-05-020, 2006-Ohio-592. Accordingly, we grant the Clerk’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Costs to Edmonds; costs waived. The court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties with notice of this judgment and the date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B). Writ denied. _________________________________ MARY EILEEN KILBANE, PRESIDING JUDGE PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., and ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.