[Cite as Bennett v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2011-Ohio-1422.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us

DONALD BENNETT 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2009-09396 

Judge Clark B. Weaver Sr. 

Magistrate Matthew C. Rambo 

MAGISTRATE DECISION

{¶ 1} Plaintiff brought this action alleging that an employee of defendant 

assaulted him. The issues of liability and damages were bifurcated and the case 

proceeded to trial on the issue of liability. 

{¶ 2} At all times relevant, plaintiff was an inmate in the custody and control of 

defendant at the Warren Correctional Institution (WCI) pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. 

Plaintiff alleges that “two days before Veteran’s Day 2009” he was assaulted without 

provocation by WCI Corrections Officer (CO) Raymond Farrell. 

{¶ 3} Plaintiff testified that on the afternoon of the incident he and several other 

inmates were in the “day room” of his housing unit playing cards. Plaintiff stated that he 

was taking medication that made it necessary for him to urinate frequently. According 

to plaintiff, when he had to use the restroom, it was necessary for the CO on duty to 

escort him to his cell and open it for him as the cells were kept locked during the 

afternoon. Plaintiff testified that CO Farrell was the officer on duty that day and that, 

after several such trips to his cell, Farrell became irritated and would not permit him into 
Case No. 2009-09396 - 2 - MAGISTRATE DECISION

the cell. Plaintiff stated that a brief argument ensued whereafter Farrell pointed a can of 

mace at his face, and ordered plaintiff to place his hands on the wall. According to 

plaintiff, he complied with the order but Farrell punched the sides of his torso and kicked 

his feet out from underneath him, causing him to fall and hit the right side of his face on 

the floor. Plaintiff testified that he was sent to the “hole” for two days as a result of the 

incident. 

{¶ 4} Derek Mott was housed in the same housing unit as plaintiff. Mott testified 

that he was returning from his cell on an upper level of the unit when he saw plaintiff 

standing against a wall crying with Farrell nearby. According to Mott, Farrell told him 

that plaintiff had “resisted,” but that he did not mean to knock him down or hurt him. 

Mott stated that when Farrell let plaintiff into his cell, plaintiff was crying hysterically and 

complaining that he was in pain. After a brief period of time, plaintiff was escorted to 

the infirmary for treatment. 

{¶ 5} Farrell testified that he was the “pod” officer working the 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 

p.m. shift on the day of the incident. According to Farrell, only two COs are assigned to 

the housing unit during that shift and are responsible for guarding 128 inmates. Farrell 

stated that in his experience as a CO, it is well-known that inmates in this type of setting 

try to distract the COs so that other inmates can sneak out of the housing unit. Farrell 

noticed that every time plaintiff asked to go to his cell to use the restroom, other inmates 

in the unit began to move suspiciously around the unit, and that after the third time 

plaintiff had asked to go to his cell, the other CO on duty caught an inmate trying to 

sneak out of the unit. According to Farrell, when plaintiff noticed the other inmate being 

caught, he told Farrell that he no longer had to use the restroom. Farrell then decided 

to confine plaintiff in his cell for the rest of his shift, and ordered him into the cell. When 

plaintiff refused the order, Farrell ordered plaintiff to face the wall and place his hands 

over his head on the wall. Farrell related that he then began to“pat down” plaintiff but, 

before he finished, plaintiff began crying hysterically and threw himself to the ground. 
Case No. 2009-09396 - 3 - MAGISTRATE DECISION

After a few moments, plaintiff calmed down and complied with the order to enter his cell. 

Farrell testified that he did not strike or kick plaintiff or use any other force against 

plaintiff and, therefore, did not prepare a report following the incident. 

{¶ 6} The Ohio Administrative Code sets forth the circumstances under which 

force may be lawfully utilized by prison officials and employees in controlling inmates. 

Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-01(C) provides, in relevant part: 

{¶ 7} “(2) Less-than-deadly force. There are six general circumstances in 

which a staff member may use force against an inmate or third person. A staff member 

may use less-than-deadly force against an inmate in the following circumstances: 

{¶ 8} “(a) Self-defense from physical attack or threat of physical harm; 

{¶ 9} “(b) Defense of another from physical attack or threat of physical attack; 

{¶ 10} “(c) When necessary to control or subdue an inmate who refuses to obey 

prison rules, regulations or orders; 

{¶ 11} “(d) When necessary to stop an inmate from destroying property or 

engaging in a riot or other disturbance; 

{¶ 12} “(e) Prevention of an escape or apprehension of an escapee; or 

{¶ 13} “(f) Controlling or subduing an inmate in order to stop or prevent selfinflicted harm.” 

{¶ 14} The court has recognized that “corrections officers have a privilege to use 

force upon inmates under certain conditions. * * * However, such force must be used in 

the performance of official duties and cannot exceed the amount of force which is 

reasonably necessary under the circumstances. * * * Obviously ‘the use of force is a 

reality of prison life’ and the precise degree of force required to respond to a given 

situation requires an exercise of discretion by the corrections officer.” Mason v. Ohio 

Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1990), 62 Ohio Misc.2d 96, 101-102. (Internal citations 

omitted.) 

{¶ 15} The court finds that Farrell’s recounting of the incident is the more credible 

than that of plaintiff and Mott. Plaintiff did not produce any documentary evidence to 
Case No. 2009-09396 - 4 - MAGISTRATE DECISION

support his version of events or to show that he suffered any injury as a result of the 

incident. Accordingly, judgment is recommended in favor of defendant. 

 A party may file written objections to the magistrate’s decision within 14 days of 

the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision during that 

14-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). If any party timely files objections, 

any other party may also file objections not later than ten days after the first objections 

are filed. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual 

finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or 

conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and specifically 

objects to that factual finding or legal conclusion within 14 days of the filing of the 

decision, as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).

 

 _____________________________________ 

 MATTHEW C. RAMBO 

 Magistrate 

cc: 

 

James P. Dinsmore 

Assistant Attorney General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

Donald Bennett, #535-584 

P.O. Box 120 

Lebanon, Ohio 45036 

MR/cmd

Filed March 4, 2011 

To S.C. reporter March 22, 2011