On Thursday, March 26, 2026, Thomas L. Meros filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court of Ohio seeking to compel judges of the Eighth District Court of Appeals and the Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts to produce and restore allegedly missing public records tied to decades-old litigation.

Meros, acting pro se, named as respondents multiple appellate judges, including Judge Mary J. Boyle, as well as Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts Nailah K. Byrd and unidentified parties. The petition asks the state’s high court to order the return of original court documents and require officials to make them available for public inspection, as mandated by Ohio’s Public Records Act.

The filing centers on records from Kracht v. Kracht, a case dating back to the early 1990s in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Meros alleges that numerous documents, including docket entries and filings preserved on microfilm, were removed or are otherwise no longer accessible through the clerk’s office systems. He claims that at least 171 docket entries from 1994 to 1995 and an additional 80 earlier entries were missing when he reviewed the records in 2018 and again in 2020.

According to the petition, Meros previously viewed and copied portions of the file in June 2018 with assistance from the clerk’s office staff. When he returned in January 2020, he alleges the same records could not be located and were replaced in the system with a notation stating “File Too Large.” He contends that the removal of these materials violates statutory duties requiring clerks to preserve and maintain court records.

Meros further asserts that the clerk, as the official custodian of court records, has a clear legal obligation under Ohio law to provide access to public documents within a reasonable time. He argues that any interference by judges with those duties would constitute unlawful conduct.

The petition also references prior appellate proceedings in Kracht v. Kracht, noting that decisions issued in 1997 reversed certain trial court rulings. Meros claims discrepancies between filings, journal entries, and court actions demonstrate irregularities that warrant judicial intervention through mandamus.

In seeking relief, Meros asks the Supreme Court of Ohio to order respondents to return the disputed records to their proper repository, ensure public access, and award statutory damages permitted under the Public Records Act. He maintains that mandamus is appropriate because he lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

The case invokes the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction over extraordinary writs. No ruling has yet been issued.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.