[Cite as Fife v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2016-Ohio-1279.]

{¶1} On December 8, 2015, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment 

pursuant to Civ.R. 56(B). Plaintiff did not file a response. The motion is now before the 

court for a non-oral hearing pursuant to L.C.C.R. 4(D). 

{¶2} Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows: 

{¶3} “Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of 

evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that 

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as 

stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from 

the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable 

minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party 

against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to 

have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party’s favor.” See also 

Gilbert v. Summit Cty., 104 Ohio St.3d 660, 2004-Ohio-7108, citing Temple v. Wean 

United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977). 

{¶4} According to the complaint, plaintiff is an inmate in the custody and control 

of defendant. The complaint, which contains few factual details, provides that on 

HAYDEN FIFE 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION 

AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2015-00523 

Judge Patrick M. McGrath

Magistrate Gary Peterson 

ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No. 2015-00523 -2- ENTRY 

January 14, 2015, staff members at the Ross Correctional Institution (RCI) “maliciously 

assaulted Plaintiff, knowing fully well that Plaintiff is on Defendant’s mental health 

caseload.” Plaintiff alleges that the staff members should have known that he had not 

taken his mental health medication and that no use of force documentation was 

initiated. 

{¶5} Defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim 

arising from the alleged assault, and that, to the extent that plaintiff has alleged that 

defendant’s staff members failed to follow internal rules or procedures, there is no 

cause of action for such alleged violations. 

{¶6} In addition to the theory of assault pleaded in the complaint, it has been held 

that allegations of “unnecessary or excessive force against an inmate may state claims 

for battery and/or negligence.” Brown v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 

13AP-804, 2014-Ohio-1810, ¶ 13. 

{¶7} “To prove assault under Ohio law, plaintiff must show that the defendant 

willfully threatened or attempted to harm or touch the plaintiff offensively in a manner 

that reasonably placed the plaintiff in fear of the contact. To prove battery, the plaintiff 

must prove that the intentional contact by the defendant was harmful or offensive. Ohio 

courts have held that, in a civil action for assault and battery, the defendant has the 

burden of proving a defense of justification, such as the exercise of lawful authority.” 

(Citations omitted.) Miller v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 

12AP-12, 2012-Ohio-3382, ¶ 11. 

{¶8} “To recover on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence (1) that a defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, (2) that a 

defendant breached that duty, and (3) that the breach of the duty proximately caused a 

plaintiff’s injury.” Ford v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 05AP357, 2006-Ohio-2531, ¶ 10. “Ohio law imposes a duty of reasonable care upon the 
Case No. 2015-00523 -3- ENTRY 

state to provide for its prisoners’ health, care, and well-being.” Ensman v. Ohio Dept. of 

Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-592, 2006-Ohio-6788, ¶ 5. 

{¶9} “The use of force is sometimes necessary to control inmates.” Jodrey v. 

Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-477, 2013-Ohio-289, ¶ 17. 

“Correctional officers considering the use of force must evaluate the need to use force 

based on the circumstances as known and perceived at the time it is considered.” 

Brown at ¶ 15, citing Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-01(C). “[T]he precise degree of force 

required to respond to a given situation requires an exercise of discretion by the 

corrections officer.” Ensman at ¶ 23. “In Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-01, the Ohio 

Administrative Code sets forth the circumstances under which correctional officers are 

authorized to use force against an inmate.” Id. at ¶ 6. 

{¶10} Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-01 provides, in pertinent part: 

{¶11} “(C) Guidelines regarding the use of force. * * * 

{¶12} “* * * 

{¶13} “(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: 

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

{¶15} “(b) Defense of another from physical attack or threat of physical attack. 

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

prison rules, regulations or orders. 

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

engaging in a riot or other disturbance. 

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

{¶19} “(f) Controlling or subduing an inmate in order to stop or prevent selfinflicted harm.” 
Case No. 2015-00523 -4- ENTRY 

{¶20} “Pursuant to Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-01(C)(1)(a), correctional officers ‘may 

use force only to the extent deemed necessary to control the situation.’ Additionally, 

correctional officers ‘should attempt to use only the amount of force reasonably 

necessary under the circumstances to control the situation and shall attempt to 

minimize physical injury.’ Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-01(C)(1)(b).” Brown at ¶ 16. Also 

pertinent is Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-01(B)(3), which defines “excessive force” as “an 

application of force which, either by the type of force employed, or the extent to which 

such force is employed, exceeds that force which reasonably appears to be necessary 

under all the circumstances surrounding the incident.” 

{¶21} In support of its motion, defendant submitted the affidavits from the 

following RCI staff members: Corrections Captain Nathan Thompson, Corrections 

Lieutenant Kevin S. Riffe, Corrections Lieutenant Clyde L. Spencer, Corrections Officer 

Jered W. Knisley, and Corrections Officer Brad T. Reese. 

{¶22} As set forth in the affidavits, on January 14, 2015, plaintiff was brought to 

Corrections Captain Thompson’s office as a result of being suspected of illicitly 

smuggling food out of the chow hall. While in Thompson’s office, Corrections 

Lieutenants Riffe and Spencer and Corrections Officers Knisley and Reese describe 

plaintiff as yelling aggressively and argumentatively, and generally acting in a 

threatening manner. Riffe, Spencer, and Knisley aver that plaintiff remarked something 

to the effect of “bring it on; I am ready” while taking off his jacket. Each of the affiants 

avers that plaintiff thereafter swung his fist at Spencer, missed, and struck Knisley. 

Riffe avers that he subsequently grabbed plaintiff over the shoulder, and that along with 

the assistance of Reese and Knisley, plaintiff was taken to the ground. Riffe, Reese, 

and Knisley aver that plaintiff continued to struggle while on the ground but they were 

able to put handcuffs on plaintiff at that point. Thompson, Riffe, Spencer, Knisley, and 

Reese, further state that they were not aware of whether plaintiff was taking any 

medication for mental health issues and that pursuant to DRC policy, the appropriate 
Case No. 2015-00523 -5- ENTRY 

level of force for a given situation does not change dependent on whether the inmate is 

on such medication. All of the affiants authenticate incident reports that they prepared 

to document the matter. Thompson authenticates documents related to the use of force 

investigation. 

{¶23} As stated above, plaintiff did not file a response to defendant’s motion, nor 

did he provide the court with any affidavit or other evidence to support his allegations. 

Civ.R. 56(E) states, in part, that “[w]hen a motion for summary judgment is made and 

supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere 

allegations or denials of the party’s pleadings, but the party’s response, by affidavit or 

as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a 

genuine issue for trial. If the party does not so respond, summary judgment, if 

appropriate, shall be entered against the party.” 

{¶24} Based upon the uncontested affidavit testimony provided by defendant, 

reasonable minds can only conclude that plaintiff was brought to Thompson’s office as a 

result of being suspected of illicitly smuggling food out of the chow hall. While in 

Thompson’s office, plaintiff was argumentative, aggressive and threatening. It is 

undisputed that plaintiff remarked “bring it on; I am ready,” removed his jacket, and 

swung his fist at Spencer and struck Knisley. Thereafter, plaintiff was taken to the 

ground where he continued to resist; however, Riffe, Reese, and Knisley were able to 

place handcuffs on plaintiff. Finally, it is undisputed that none of the officers involved 

knew whether plaintiff was taking medication for any mental health issues. Each of the 

officers completed incident reports and Thompson completed a use of force 

investigation. 

{¶25} It can only be concluded that, under the circumstances, the officers had the 

lawful authority and privilege to use such force as may have reasonably appeared 

necessary under the circumstances to both control or subdue plaintiff and to prevent 

harm to others and themselves. It must also be concluded that the degree of force used 
Case No. 2015-00523 -6- ENTRY 

during the incident was justified and privileged, and satisfied the duty of reasonable 

care. 

{¶26} To the extent plaintiff has alleged that defendant’s employees violated 

internal rules or procedures, such internal rules, policies, procedures, and regulations 

are primarily designed to guide correctional officials in prison administration rather than 

to confer rights on inmates. State ex rel. Larkins v. Wilkinson, 79 Ohio St.3d 477, 479 

(1997); Peters v. Dept. of Rehab & Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-1048, 2015-

Ohio-2668. Accordingly, there is no claim for relief based solely upon the violation of 

internal rules and policies. Triplett v. Warren Corr. Inst., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP728, 2013-Ohio-2743, ¶ 10. 

{¶27} Based upon the foregoing, it can only be concluded that there are no 

genuine issues of material fact and that defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law on plaintiff’s assault claim. To the extent plaintiff claims a violation of internal rules 

or procedures, no such cause of action exists. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment is GRANTED and judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. All 

other pending motions are DENIED as moot. All previously scheduled events are 

hereby VACATED. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve 

upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. 

 PATRICK M. MCGRATH 

 Judge 

cc: 

Hayden Fife, #665-366 

P.O. Box 120 

Lebanon, Ohio 45036 

Lee Ann Rabe 

Assistant Attorney General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

Filed February 24, 2016 

Sent To S.C. Reporter 3/25/16