State ex rel. Dehler v. Mohr
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Dehler v. Mohr, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-959.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2011-OHIO-959 THE STATE EX REL. DEHLER, APPELLANT, v. MOHR, DIR., ET AL., APPELLEES. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Dehler v. Mohr, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-959.] Public records Mandamus sought to compel release of documents by prison Prisons are accorded deference in adopting policies to maintain order and institutional security Judgment denying writ affirmed. (No. 2010-2020 Submitted March 2, 2011 Decided March 9, 2011.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 09AP-703, 2010-Ohio-5436. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, the director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction1 and various officials and employees of the 1 After Dehler instituted his case, Gary C. Mohr became the director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Trumbull Correctional Institution, to provide appellant, inmate Lambert Dehler, with access to records related to the purchase of peanut butter at the prison. Dehler, however, now resides at the Mansfield Correctional Institution. {¶ 2} The court of appeals concluded that allowing Dehler to personally inspect the requested records from his new location would be close to impossible. State ex rel. Dehler v. Collins, Franklin App. No. 09AP-703, 2010Ohio-5436, ¶ 10. Furthermore, providing Dehler with the requested records would have created security issues, unreasonably interfered with the officials discharge of their duties, and violated prison rules. See id. at ¶ 11-13; see also State ex rel. Dehler v. Spatny, 127 Ohio St.3d 312, 2010-Ohio-5711, 939 N.E.2d 831, ¶ 5, and State ex rel. Dehler v. Kelly, 127 Ohio St.3d 309, 2010-Ohio-5724, 939 N.E.2d 828, ¶ 3, citing Briscoe v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Franklin App. No. 02AP-1109, 2003-Ohio-3533, 2003 WL 21512808, ¶ 16 ( With respect to penal institutions, prison administrators must be accorded deference in adopting * * * policies and practices to preserve internal order and to maintain institutional security ). {¶ 3} Furthermore, Dehler was not entitled to copies of the requested records pursuant to the Public Records Act because he refused to submit prepayment for their cost. R.C. 149.43(B)(1) authorizes a public office to require the prepayment of costs before providing copies of public records. Spatny at ¶ 4; Kelly at ¶ 2; State ex rel. Call v. Fragale, 104 Ohio St.3d 276, 2004-Ohio-6589, 819 N.E.2d 294, ¶ 6 ( R.C. 149.43 does not require a publicrecords custodian to provide copies of records free of charge; instead, the Public Records Act requires only that copies of public records be made available at cost ). {¶ 4} Therefore, Dehler failed to establish his entitlement to the requested records under R.C. 149.43, and we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 2 January Term, 2011 Judgment affirmed. O CONNOR, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. PFEIFER, J., concurs in judgment only. __________________ Lambert Dehler, pro se. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Ashley D. Rutherford, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees. ______________________ 3
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.
