Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State ex rel. Mason v. Basinger

Ohio Supreme Court

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 638

• Docket Number: 2025-0743

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (1.4K)

• PDF

Syllabus

Mandamus—Public-records requests—Relator failed to show that the only named respondent, a mail-room employee, had a clear legal duty to provide requested public records—Court of appeals improperly dismissed complaint after granting summary judgment to respondent—Court of appeals' judgment modified, and writ and request for statutory damages denied.

Combined Opinion

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State
ex rel. Mason v. Basinger, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-638.]

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. 2026-OHIO-638
THE STATE EX REL. MASON, APPELLANT , v. BASINGER, APPELLEE .
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
may be cited as State ex rel. Mason v. Basinger, Slip Opinion No.
2026-Ohio-638.]
Mandamus—Public-records requests—Relator failed to show that the only named
respondent, a mail-room employee, had a clear legal duty to provide
requested public records—Court of appeals improperly dismissed
complaint after granting summary judgment to respondent—Court of
appeals’ judgment modified, and writ and request for statutory damages
denied.
(No. 2025-0743—Submitted October 7, 2025—Decided February 27, 2026.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No. 01-24-073.

The per curiam opinion below was joined by FISCHER, DEWINE, BRUNNER,
DETERS, HAWKINS, and SHANAHAN, JJ. KENNEDY, C.J., concurred in judgment
only.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Appellant, David Mason, sent a public-records request by certified
mail addressed to the supervisor of education at the Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction’s (“ODRC”) Allen-Oakwood Correctional Institution (“ACI”).
When Mason did not receive a response, he brought a mandamus action in the Third
District Court of Appeals seeking issuance of a writ to compel production of the
requested public records. He also requested an award of statutory damages.
{¶ 2} Mason named appellee, Gloria Basinger, the mail-room clerk who
signed for the certified mail, as the only respondent. The Third District granted
summary judgment to Basinger on the ground that Mason did not name as a
respondent either the public office or the person responsible for the public records.
The Third District dismissed the complaint, and Mason appeals.
{¶ 3} The Third District correctly granted summary judgment to Basinger.
However, we sua sponte modify the court of appeals’ dismissal of the mandamus
complaint to a denial of the writ.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
{¶ 4} Mason is an inmate at the North Central Correctional Complex. On
September 17, 2024, Mason sent a public-records request by certified mail to the
“Supervisor of Education” at ACI. The request sought various records related to
ACI’s educational programming. Mason addressed the certified mail to
“Supervisor of Education, ACI, P.O. Box 4501, Lima, Ohio, 45802.” On
September 25, Basinger signed for the certified mail. Mason states that he did not
receive a response to his public-records request.
{¶ 5} On November 25, Mason filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in
the Third District Court of Appeals. As the respondent, he named only Basinger—
whom he identified as ACI’s supervisor of education. Basinger answered and the
parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and supporting evidence.

2
January Term, 2026

Basinger denies being the supervisor of education, and she submitted an affidavit
in which she stated that at the time of the mailing, she worked in ACI’s mailroom
with the job title “Storekeeper 2.” She also stated that her job duties in that position
involved managing incoming and outgoing mail, that she has never been involved
in any aspect of educational programming at ACI, and that she has had no role in
managing or maintaining records related to a prison’s education department or
services.
{¶ 6} The Third District granted summary judgment to Basinger because
Mason did not name as a respondent either the public office or the person
responsible for the public records. The Third District dismissed the complaint.
Mason appeals as of right.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. The court of appeals properly granted summary judgment to Basinger
{¶ 7} The Third District granted summary judgment to Basinger on the
ground that Mason did not name as a respondent the public office or person
responsible for the public records. The court of appeals was correct in doing so.
{¶ 8} Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
State ex rel. Rodriguez v. Barker, 2019-Ohio-4155, ¶ 7. We review a court of
appeals’ decision granting summary judgment de novo. Id.
{¶ 9} “A writ of mandamus is an appropriate remedy by which to compel
compliance with the Public Records Act.” State ex rel. Fenstermaker v. Phillips,
2025-Ohio-2081, ¶ 6; accord R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(b).1 To obtain the writ, “the
requester must prove by clear and convincing evidence a clear legal right to the

1. The General Assembly has recently amended R.C. 149.43, most notably in 2024 Sub.H.B. No. 265 (effective Apr. 9, 2025), and some provisions have been renumbered. This opinion applies the versions of the statute enacted in 2023 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 33 (effective Oct. 3, 2023) and 2024 Sub.S.B. No. 29 (effective Oct. 24, 2024), which are substantively the same for purposes of this opinion.

3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

record and a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the respondent to provide
it.” State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer, 2021-Ohio-1419, ¶ 10.
{¶ 10} Generally, a public office or person responsible for public records
has an obligation to make copies of public records available to a requester at cost
and within a reasonable period. R.C. 149.43(B)(1). Here, Mason seeks a writ of
mandamus ordering Basinger to produce the public records he requested. But
Basinger has submitted evidence showing that she did not maintain or control the
requested records and had no duties related to educational services or programming.
Instead, she worked in the prison’s mail room and her only connection to Mason’s
public-records request is that she signed for the certified mail. Mason has not
submitted evidence showing otherwise.
{¶ 11} We previously held, in a case in which the relator did not provide
evidence linking a mail-room employee to the requested public records, that the
relator failed to show that the mail-room employee was a person responsible for
public records. State ex rel. Clark v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2025-Ohio-1577,
¶ 29-30. Similarly here, Mason has not shown by clear and convincing evidence
that Basinger is a person responsible for the public records that Mason requested.
{¶ 12} Mason argues that even if Basinger did not maintain the records
herself, he mailed his public-records request to the office, not to her. Therefore, he
argues that he properly sent his request to the public office. But even assuming that
mailing a request to the “supervisor of education” constitutes sending the request
to a public office, Mason did not name the office as a respondent in his mandamus
complaint. Rather, he named Basinger, and Basinger has no clear legal duty to
provide the public records. Put another way, Mason might meet the first
requirement for a writ of mandamus: a clear legal right to production of the records.
But he has not shown that he meets the second requirement: a clear legal duty on
the part of the respondent to provide them. See Griffin, 2021-Ohio-1419, at ¶ 10.

4
January Term, 2026

{¶ 13} In his merit brief, Mason appears to argue that he named the
“supervisor of education” as an additional respondent in his complaint, separate
from Basinger. This is inaccurate. Mason wrote the respondent line in the caption
of his complaint as “Gloria Basinga sic.”
(Emphasis in original.) The caption does not list “ACI Supervisor of Education”
separately from Basinger, and the bolding and parenthetical indicate that Mason
believed Basinger was the supervisor of education or worked for the supervisor.
Any ambiguity is clarified by the body of Mason’s complaint, which refers to the
respondent in the singular, and which seeks a writ compelling “Respondent, Gloria
Basigna [sic], Allen Correctional Institution supervisor of education, to provide
public records pursuant to R.C. 149.43.” Therefore, Mason named only one
respondent.
{¶ 14} Mason also cites what he claims is an ODRC policy requiring “all
ODRC personnel [to] familiarize themselves with the records considered ‘public’
and ‘non-public’ by ODRC.” But even if Basinger was required to familiarize
herself with what is and is not a public record, that does not mean that she is a
person responsible for public records related to ODRC educational programming.
{¶ 15} Because Mason did not show that Basinger has a clear legal duty to
provide the public records he requested, he is not entitled to a writ of mandamus.
Similarly, because Basinger did not fail to comply with an obligation under R.C.
149.43(B), Mason is not entitled to an award of statutory damages. See R.C.
149.43(C)(2).
B. Modification of dismissal to denial
{¶ 16} Although the Third District correctly granted summary judgment to
Basinger, it improperly dismissed Mason’s complaint. Because the parties
submitted evidence and the court of appeals granted summary judgment, the proper
resolution was to deny the writ rather than dismiss the complaint. See State ex rel.
E. Mfg. Corp. v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 179, 180-181 (1992). We

5
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

have previously sua sponte modified similar dismissals to denials and we do so here
as well. See id; see also State ex rel. Ames v. Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley &
Mathews, 2023-Ohio-2668, ¶ 19.
III. CONCLUSION
{¶ 17} Mason has not shown that Basinger—the only respondent named in
his mandamus action—has a clear legal duty to provide the public records Mason
requested. Accordingly, Mason is not entitled to a writ of mandamus or an award
of statutory damages. However, because the parties filed evidence and the Third
District Court of Appeals granted summary judgment, we sua sponte modify the
court of appeals’ dismissal of Mason’s complaint to a denial of the writ.
Judgment modified
and writ denied.

David Mason, pro se.
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Adam Beckler, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.

6