[Cite as Johnson v. Mansfield Correctional Inst., 2010-Ohio-6648.]

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

LEE JOHNSON, JR. 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

MANSFIELD CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-06907-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT 

{¶ 1} Plaintiff, Lee Johnson, Jr., an inmate incarcerated at defendant, Mansfield 

Correctional Institution (ManCI), filed this action alleging ManCI personnel honored a 

forged “Personal Account Withdrawal Check-Out Slip” (cash slip) resulting in funds 

being withdrawn from his inmate account without his knowledge or authorization. In his 

complaint, plaintiff requested damage recovery of $100.00, the amount the ManCI 

cashier withdrew from his inmate account when honoring a forged instrument. The filing 

fee was paid. 

{¶ 2} Plaintiff recalled he received a cash slip from defendant on December 28, 

2009 “indicating $100.00 had been withdrawn from my Inmate Account.” Plaintiff 

produced a copy of the particular cash slip dated December 15, 2009 authorizing 

defendant to withdraw $100.00 from plaintiff’s account and send a check in that amount 

to Joyce Hereford at an address in Cleveland. The cash slip bears a signature 

purporting to be plaintiff’s and contains plaintiff’s inmate number as well as his cell 

housing unit assignment. The cash slip was processed on December 22, 2009 with a 
check naming Joyce Hereford as payee being sent to the listed Cleveland address. 

Plaintiff pointed out he complained to ManCI staff regarding the forged cash slip 

authorization on December 29, 2009, the day after he received his copy of the cash slip. 

Plaintiff indicated he was subsequently denied reimbursement of the $100.00 when he 

filed formal complaints regarding the ManCI cashier honoring a forged cash slip. 

Plaintiff submitted copies of cash slips he did sign as a comparison to the cash slip 

dated December 15, 2009. The signature on the December 15, 2009 cash slip appears 

different from the other cash slips plaintiff submitted and admitted he signed. Plaintiff 

submitted a copy of a “Disposition of Grievance” he filed in connection over the dispute 

regarding an improper withdrawal from his inmate account. In this “Disposition of 

Grievance,” defendant’s inspector reported the evidence available supported plaintiff’s 

allegations that the ManCI cashier honored a forged cash slip. 

{¶ 3} Defendant denied liability in this matter disputing plaintiff’s assertions that 

the December 15, 2009 cash slip is a forged instrument. Defendant argued the 

evidence is inconclusive to establish that the ManCI cashier actually honored a forged 

document. Defendant explained the name of the designated payee on the December 

15, 2009 cash slip authorization, Joyce Hereford, is listed as the sister of former inmate 

Enos Hereford, who was incarcerated at the North Central Correctional Institution 

(NCCI). However, according to defendant, there is no connection between Enos 

Hereford and plaintiff and a Joyce Hereford is not a listed party on plaintiff’s visitor list 

(copy submitted). Submitted documentation shows Enos Hereford is no longer 

incarcerated at NCCI (released December 17, 2009) or any other state institution. 

Defendant’s submitted documentation on Joyce Hereford, the sister of Enos Hereford, 

lists a Toledo, Ohio address and not any Cleveland address. Defendant provided a 

copy of the canceled check issued to Joyce Hereford. Defendant maintained there are 

similarities between the signature on the December 15, 2009 cash slip and plaintiff’s 

verified signature as it appears on other documents. Consequently, defendant argued 

“there is a legitimate question as to whether the signature (on the 12/15/09 cash slip) is 

actually a forgery.” 

{¶ 4} Defendant submitted a copy of the purported forged cash slip which bears 

the stamped names of two ManCI employees, “Zelurs Fields” and “Lt. O. Smoot.” 

These stamped names of “Zelurs Fields” and “Lt. O. Smoot” appear on the cash slip 
inside the “Approved By:” box. The stamped name “Lt. Smoot” also appears in the 

“Witnessed” box on the cash slip. Plaintiff advised that ManCI employee Lt. Smoot is 

not the lieutenant assigned to his housing unit at ManCI. Plaintiff further advised ManCI 

employee, Lt. Minard is the lieutenant assigned to his housing unit and consequently, 

Lt. Minard would have been the proper authority to provide stamped approval on any 

cash slip authorizing withdrawal of funds from his inmate account. Defendant noted Lt. 

Smoot was contacted and he denied stamping the December 15, 2009 cash slip in 

question. Also, defendant stated “Smoot’s stamp was in his mail box in the Captain’s 

office and he believes someone else, inmate or staff, used it.” Defendant denied having 

any knowledge that the December 15, 2009 cash slip was forged. Defendant 

maintained “[t]here is no direct evidence that the signature is a forgery, and there is no 

direct evidence of staff negligence.” 

{¶ 5} Plaintiff filed a response insisting his signature was forged on the cash slip 

and defendant honored the forged instrument resulting in a loss of $100.00 from his 

inmate account. Plaintiff asserted defendant failed to properly identify the individual 

who submitted the December 15, 2009 cash slip bearing the signature Lee Johnson. 

Furthermore, plaintiff asserted the evidence produced establishes defendant failed to 

follow proper procedure when approving the cash slip authorization to withdraw funds 

from his inmate account. After reviewing all submissions, the trier of fact finds 

defendant honored a forged instrument. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

{¶ 6} 1) In order to prevail, plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that defendant owed him a duty, that defendant breached that duty, and that 

defendant’s breach proximately caused his injuries. Armstrong v. Best Buy Company, 

Inc., 99 Ohio St. 3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573,¶8 citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, 

Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 75, 77, 15 OBR 179, 472 N.E. 2d 707. 

{¶ 7} 2) “Whether a duty is breached and whether the breach proximately 

caused an injury are normally questions of fact, to be decided . . . by the court . . .” 

Pacher v. Invisible Fence of Dayton, 154 Ohio App. 3d 744, 2003-Ohio-5333,¶41, 

Mussivand v. David (1989), 45 Ohio St. 3d 314, 318, 544 N.E. 2d 265. 

{¶ 8} 3) This court in Mullett v. Department of Correction (1976), 76-0292-AD, 

held that defendant does not have the liability of an insurer (i.e., is not liable without 
fault) with respect to inmate property, but that it does have the duty to make “reasonable 

attempts to protect, or recover” such property. 

{¶ 9} 4) Plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that he suffered a loss and that this loss was proximately caused by 

defendant’s negligence. Barnum v. Ohio State University (1977), 76-0368-AD. 

{¶ 10} 5) Defendant is not responsible for theft committed by inmates unless an 

agency relationship is shown or it is shown that defendant was negligent. Walker v. 

Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1978), 78-0217-AD. 

{¶ 11} 6) Negligence on the part of defendant has been shown in respect to 

protecting plaintiff’s property. Billups v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

(2001), 2000-10634-AD. 

{¶ 12} 7) Liability on the part of defendant has been established in not protecting 

the funds in plaintiff’s inmate account. Nash v. Belmont Correctional Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 

2006-03907-AD, 2007-Ohio-4507. Defendant is liable to plaintiff for the damages 

claimed, $100.00, plus the $25.00 filing fee which may be reimbursed as compensable 

costs pursuant to R.C. 2335.19. See Bailey v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and 

Correction (1990), 62 Ohio Misc. 2d 19, 587 N.E. 2d 990. 

 

 

 

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 

LEE JOHNSON, JR. 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 
MANSFIELD CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-06907-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE

DETERMINATION

 Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth 

in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor 

of plaintiff in the amount of $125.00, which includes the filing fee. Court costs are 

assessed against defendant. 

 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 

Entry cc: 

Lee Johnson, Jr., #520-739 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel 

1150 North Main Street Department of Rehabilitation 

P.O. Box 788 and Correction 

Mansfield, Ohio 44901 770 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43222 

RDK/laa 

10/6 

Filed 10/28/10 

Sent to S.C. reporter 2/2/11