The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction must pay an inmate $1,000 for failing to provide him a copy of an inmate handbook, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled today.

In a per curiam opinion , the Supreme Court found the Lebanon Correctional Institution failed to fulfill Patrick Adkins' request in December 2023 to inspect and obtain a copy of the prison' s inmate handbook until he filed a lawsuit against prison officials in June 2024.

In today' s opinion, the Court found Adkins eventually received the handbook and other records he sued to receive. However, the prison' s delay in providing the records was unreasonable, the opinion stated, and Adkins was awarded the maximum $1,000 in statutory damages allowed under R.C. 149.43(C)(2).

Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Jennifer Brunner, Joseph T. Deters, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the opinion. Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy concurred in judgment only.

Inmate Requests Records
Adkins was incarcerated in Lebanon Correctional from August 2023 until July 2024. He was then transferred to another prison. Ellen Myers, the Lebanon Correctional warden' s assistant, serves as the public information officer, and her duties include responding to public records requests from inmates.

In December 2023, Adkins sent Myers an “electronic kite,” which is a type of written communication sent between inmates and prison staff. He asked to inspect and obtain a copy of the Lebanon Correctional inmate handbook, which covers policies and procedures related to inmates.

Myers responded the same day, denying the request. She stated the handbook is an inmate record and exempt from disclosure under R.C. 5120.21(F), which states, “records of inmates committed to the department of rehabilitation and correction as well as records of persons under  the supervision of the adult parole authority shall not be considered public records.” Additionally, she stated inmate handbooks were accessible to Adkins by speaking with his unit staff.

“My office will not replace your right and ability to speak with your unit staff about obtaining a handbook to inspect and review,” she wrote.

Adkins stated he previously attempted to inspect a copy of the handbook in his unit, but it had no handbook.

On April 3, 2024, Adkins sent another electronic kite to Myers requesting records. When he did not get a response, he sent an electronic kite to the prison inspector' s office on April 9. In that message, he requested that the inspector' s office give him a printed copy of the April 3 message to Myers and a printed copy of the kite he just sent to the inspector' s office. The office officials told Adkins he needed to contact Myers for printouts of his kites. Adkins did not appear to make those requests of Myers.

Lawsuit Seeking Handbook Filed
In June 2024, Adkins sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court, seeking to compel the prison officials to provide a copy of the handbook and printouts of his April kites. He also requested damages for the delay.

After he filed his lawsuit, Myers gave him a copy of the handbook and the kites. The Court ruled his request for a writ was now moot, but the issue of whether the prison wrongfully delayed fulfilling the records request was not.

In response to Adkins' lawsuit, the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction did not defend its decision to deny his request for a handbook based on the exemption for inmate records. However, Myers maintained she properly responded to Adkins' request for the handbook on the day he made it by directing him to the unit staff.

The Court rejected the argument. The opinion stated that as the public information officer, Myers' duties included responding to inmate public records requests.

“Once Adkins requested a handbook, Myers had a duty to properly respond to the request, and advising Adkins to submit the request to another staff member was not a proper response,” the opinion stated.

The opinion noted Myers' response was also improper because she told Adkins his unit staff could allow him to inspect the handbook after he asked to both inspect it and obtain a copy.

In response to the lawsuit, Myers told the Court that the clerical staff in Adkins' unit could provide requested copies. The Court stated that Myers did not tell Adkins when she responded to his request that the unit staff could make copies.

Because she did not properly respond to his request or provide a copy within a reasonable time, the Court found Adkins was entitled to $1,000 in damages. While Adkins also requested damages for the prison' s failure to provide him copies of his kites, the Court declined because he could not show he asked Myers for printouts or that she was even aware that he asked for them.

2024-0843. State ex rel. Adkins v. Cole, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-558.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.