COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 74685
S/O EX REL., CLIFFORD HAIRSTON  :
                                :       ORIGINAL ACTION
                                :
     Relator                    :
                                :
     -vs-                       :       JOURNAL ENTRY
                                :            AND
                                :          OPINION
POLICE CHIEF, CITY OF CLEVELAND :
                                :
     Respondent                 :
                                :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT            :     JUNE 30, 1998
  OF DECISION                   :
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING            Petition for writ of
                                   Mandamus
JUDGMENT                        :  Petition Dismissed.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION          :
APPEARANCES:
For Relator:                       Clifford Hairston, Pro Se
                                   Inmate No. 320-274
                                   Madison Correctional Institute
                                   P.O. Box 740
                                   London, Ohio 43140
For Respondent:                    Sylvester Summers, Jr., Esq.
                                   Law Director
                                   Room 106 - City Hall
                                   601 Lakeside Avenue
                                   Cleveland, Ohio 44114
MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J.:
     On June 15, 1998, the relator, Clifford Hairston,  commenced
this public records mandamus action pursuant to R.C. 149.43 against
                               -2-
the  respondent,  the  Police  Chief  of  the  Cleveland   Police
Department,  to  compel  the release  of    all  police  reports,
identification procedures, related to arrest 1-9-95 for robbery.
Sua sponte, for the following reasons, this court dismisses  this
action.
     First, Mr. Hairston  failed to support his petition with  an
affidavit  specifying  the details of the  claim  as required  by
Local Rule 8(B)(1).  State ex rel. Wilson v. Calabrese (Jan.  18,
1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70077, unreported and State ex rel. Smith
v. McMonagle (July 17, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70899, unreported.
     Next, Mr. Hairston  failed to comply  with Civil Rule  10(A)
which requires that the complaint include the addresses of all the
parties. Mr. Hairston omitted his own address.  Such a deficiency
alone warrants dismissal. State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula (Aug. 21,
1997),  Cuyahoga App.  No. 72896,  unreported and  State ex  rel.
Calloway v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (Aug. 21, 1997),
Cuyahoga App. No. 71652, unreported.
     Furthermore, the  complaint is  deficient as  it relates  to
public records. Mr. Hairston failed to aver that he has previously
requested the relevant records and that he was denied them.  R.C.
149.43(C) explicitly conditions mandamus upon a governmental unit's
failure to make records available pursuant to law.  This failure to
plead a claim  fully is fatal.   State ex  rel. Temke v.  Outcalt
(1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 189, 360 N.E.2d 701 and State ex rel. Smith
v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas  (July 3, 1997), Cuyahoga
App. No. 72381, unreported.
                               -3-
     Although Mr.  Hairston did not  provide his  address on  the
complaint, the inclusion of the number 320-274 established that he
is in prison. Moreover, he did not aver that he had a designee who
could  inspect, copy  or obtain  the requested  records from  the
respondent at the Cleveland Police Department.  Under R.C. 149.43,
State ex rel. Fenley  v. Ohio Historical Society (1992), 64  Ohio
St.3d 509,  597 N.E.2d  120 and State  ex rel.  Nelson v.  Fuesrt
(1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 47,  607 N.E.2d 836, the respondent has  no
duty to send records by mail  or to respond to requests by  mail.
Fenley and its  progeny have held that  mandamus does not lie  to
compel custodians  of  public records  to  mail such  records  to
requesters because the duty  to mail is not explicitly stated  in
R.C. 149.43.  The statute requires only that the records be  made
available for inspection and copying during regular business hours.
The word availableis not synonymous with available by mail.  Thus,
Mr. Hairston's imprisonment and his lack of a designee leave  him
unable  to  compel  production  under  the  public  records  act.
Currently, the respondent does not have a duty to fulfill.
     Finally, most, if not all, of the requested records are police
investigatoryrecords, and under State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson
(1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 639 N.E.2d 83, such records are exempt
from  disclosure.   Mr. Hairston's  reliance on  the language  in
Steckmanthat such records lose their exemption upon the conclusion
of all trials,  actions and proceedings is misplaced because  the
Supreme Court in Steckman recognized that the multiple avenues for
appeal, post-conviction relief, habeas corpus and retrial mean that
                               -4-
a trial is  rarely, if ever, fully  completed.  Thus, the  quoted
language, rather than signaling  when the records become  public,
actually seals the records indefinitely.
     Accordingly, the above-captioned mandamus action is dismissed.
Costs assessed against relator.
ANN DYKE, PRESIDING JUDGE AND
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.,  CONCUR
                                             JUDGE
                                        MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN
.