[Cite as Lockridge v. Hocking Correctional Facility, 2010-Ohio-6686.]

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

PERRY D. LOCKRIDGE 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

HOCKING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-07571-AD 

Clerk Miles C. Durfey 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT 

{¶ 1} 1) Plaintiff, Perry D. Lockridge, an inmate incarcerated at defendant, 

Hocking Correctional Facility (HCF), filed this action alleging that his personal property 

was lost or stolen as a proximate cause of negligence on the part of HCF staff. Plaintiff 

explained that he was transferred from the HCF general population to a segregation unit 

on September 29, 2009 and his personal property was inventoried, packed, and 

delivered into the custody of HCF personnel incident to this transfer. Later that same 

day, HCF personnel confiscated certain items from plaintiff that were declared 

contraband. The confiscated property included two soap dishes. Plaintiff advised that 

when he regained possession of his property he discovered his silver crucifix with 

attached chain and his scented oils were missing. Plaintiff also pointed out that three 

pairs of underwear, soap dishes, religious ink pens, and a gold denture cap were 

missing. In his complaint, plaintiff requested damages in the amount of $2,500.00. It 

appears from a reading of the complaint that the damages requested apply only to the 

loss of the crucifix with attached chain. Plaintiff characterized the crucifix and chain as 

“an heirloom-significantly 70 plus years old.” Payment of the filing fee was waived. 
{¶ 2} 2) Plaintiff submitted a copy of an “Inmate Property Record-Disposition 

and Receipt” (inventory) compiled on September 29, 2009. A “necklace” is listed on this 

inventory. The inventory bears a heading “Religious Items” with a box titled “Chain 

W/Medallion.” The “Chain W/Medallion” box is unmarked on the September 29, 2009 

property inventory. Plaintiff submitted a copy of a second inventory compiled on June 

19, 2009 when he was transferred to HCF. This inventory under the heading “Religious 

Items” lists a “Chain W/Medallion.” Plaintiff submitted a copy of an “Informal Complaint 

Resolution” (ICR) dated October 11, 2009 concerning the loss of property incident to the 

September 29, 2009 property pack up. In this ICR plaintiff references “my silver chains, 

crosses, and the bottle of solution which was cleaning solution for my jewelry.” Plaintiff 

submitted a copy of a title issued at the Lebanon Correctional Institution dated 

September 16, 2005. This title refers to a property item listed as a “Silver Chain.” A 

crucifix or cross is not listed on the September 16, 2005 title issued to plaintiff. 

{¶ 3} 3) Defendant denied losing any property incident to the September 29, 

2009 pack up. Defendant specifically denied losing any chain with a cross on it. 

Defendant acknowledged that plaintiff did own a “silver chain.” However, defendant 

asserted that the chain plaintiff owned did not have cross on it. Defendant related that: 

“Defendant offered Plaintiff reimbursement for the loss of that chain in the amount of 

$51.88, but Plaintiff refused to accept that amount.” Defendant contended that plaintiff 

not only failed to offer sufficient evidence to show that any of his property items were 

lost while under the control of HCF staff, but failed to produce evidence to prove his 

damages claimed. Defendant filed a copy of an “Inmate Property Theft/Loss Report” 

(theft report) dated October 6, 2009 and compiled when plaintiff reported the loss of “2 

silver chains and 2 silver crosses and 1 gold tooth.” According to information in this 

theft report, the gold tooth was recovered, but no crosses and chains were found. 

Additionally, the HCF employee who compiled the theft report also packed plaintiff’s 

property on September 29, 2009 and recorded that “I don’t remember seeing them 

(crosses and chains) during the pack up.” 

{¶ 4} 4) Plaintiff filed a response noting that he is forbidden under defendant’s 

internal policy from possessing a chain that does not have a religious medallion 

attached. Plaintiff did not submit any evidence to establish a chain with attached 

crucifix was lost by defendant’s staff when his property was packed on September 29, 
2009. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

{¶ 5} 1) For plaintiff to prevail on a claim of negligence, he must prove, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that defendant owed him a duty, that it breached that 

duty, and that the 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. 

{¶ 6} :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, citing 

Miller v. Paulson (1994), 97 Ohio App. 3d 217, 221, 646 N.E. 2d 521; Mussivand v. 

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

{¶ 7} 3) If an injury is the natural and probable consequence of a negligent 

act and it is such as should have been foreseen in the light of all the attending 

circumstances, the injury is then the proximate result of the negligence. It is not 

necessary that the defendant should have anticipated the particular injury. It is 

sufficient that his act is likely to result in an injury to someone.” Cascone v. Herb Kay 

Co. (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 155, 160, 6 OBR 209, 451 N.E. 2d 815, quoting Neff Lumber 

Co. v. First National Bank of St. Clairsville, Admr. (1930), 122 Ohio St. 302, 309, 171 

N.E. 327. 

{¶ 8} 4) Although not strictly responsible for a prisoner’s property, defendant 

had at least the duty of using the same degree of care as it would use with its own 

property. Henderson v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1979), 76-0356-AD. 

{¶ 9} 5) 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. 

{¶ 10} 6) 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. 

{¶ 11} 7) Plaintiff must produce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for 

the conclusion that defendant’s conduct is more likely than not a substantial factor in 
bringing about the harm. Parks v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1985), 

85-01546-AD. 

{¶ 12} 8) In order to recover against a defendant in a tort action, plaintiff must 

produce evidence which furnishes a reasonable basis for sustaining his claim. If his 

evidence furnishes a basis for only a guess, among different possibilities as to any issue 

in the case, he fails to sustain the burden as to such issue. Landon v. Lee Motors, Inc.

(1954), 161 Ohio St. 82, 53 O.O. 25, 118 N.E. 2d 147. 

{¶ 13} 9) Plaintiff cannot recover for property loss when he fails to produce 

sufficient evidence to establish defendant actually assumed control over property. 

Whiteside v. Orient Correctional Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2002-05751, 2005-Ohio-4455 obj. 

overruled, 2005-Ohio-5068. Plaintiff failed to prove defendant actually exercised control 

over a chain with attached crucifix. 

{¶ 14} 10) Plaintiff’s failure to prove delivery of the above listed property to 

defendant constitutes a failure to show imposition of a legal bailment duty on the part of 

defendant in respect to lost property. Prunty v. Department of Rehabilitation and 

Correction (1987), 86-02821-AD. 

{¶ 15} 11) Plaintiff has failed to show any causal connection between the loss of 

any property and any breach of a duty owed by defendant in regard to protecting inmate 

property. Druckenmiller v. Mansfield Correctional Inst. (1998), 97-11819-AD; Melson v. 

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (2003), Ct. of Cl. No. 2003-04236-AD, 

2003-Ohio-3615. 

{¶ 16} 12) Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 

his property was lost as a proximate result of any negligent conduct attributable to 

defendant. Fitzgerald v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1998), 97-10146-

AD. 

{¶ 17} 13) Plaintiff has no right to pursue a claim for property in which he cannot 

prove any right of ownership. DeLong v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

(1988), 88-06000-AD. Defendant cannot be held liable for contraband property that 

plaintiff has no right to possess. Beaverson v. Department of Rehabilitation and 

Correction (1988), 87-02540-AD; Radford v. Department of Rehabilitation and 

Correction (1985), 84-09071. 

{¶ 18} 14) This court has previously held that property in an inmate’s 
possession which cannot be validated by proper indicia of ownership is contraband and 

consequently, no recovery is permitted when such property is confiscated. Wheaton v. 

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1988), 88-04899-AD. 

{¶ 19} 15) An inmate plaintiff is barred from pursuing a claim for the loss of use 

of restricted property when such property is declared impermissible pursuant to 

departmental policy. Zerla v. Dept. of Rehab. and Corr. (2001), 2000-09849-AD. 

 

 

 

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 

PERRY D. LOCKRIDGE 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

HOCKING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-07571-AD 

Clerk Miles C. Durfey 

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 defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. 
 

 ________________________________ 

 MILES C. DURFEY 

 Clerk 

Entry cc: 

Perry D. Lockridge, #307-702 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel 

16759 Snake Hollow Road Department of Rehabilitation 

P.O. Box 59 and Correction 

Nelsonville, Ohio 45764 770 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43222 

RDK/laa 

11/5 

Filed 12/29/10 

Sent to S.C. reporter 2/25/11