[Cite as Alderson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2011-Ohio-2889.]

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 A. ALDERSON 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-09451-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT 

{¶ 1} 1) On December 7, 2009, employees of defendant, Department of 

Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC), conducted a shakedown search at the Pickaway 

Correctional Institution (PCI), a DRC facility. Plaintiff, Lee A. Alderson, an inmate 

incarcerated at PCI, stated that several items of his personal property were stolen after 

DRC staff failed to ensure his property was secure at the conclusion of the shakedown 

search. Specifically, plaintiff asserted that a lock, one bag of coffee, eight bags of 

popcorn, twelve beef soups, three chili with beans, one sausage, one bagel, one 

cappuccino, two cupcakes, eleven beef & cheese stix, three beef stix, one creme 

cookie, one bottle cheddar cheese, two espresso coffees, and several CD’s were 

missing from his property. 

{¶ 2} 2) Plaintiff further alleged defendant failed to follow its own internal 

policies and procedures with regard to the grievances he has filed. Consequently, 

plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $204.29, the stated replacement cost for 

his missing property. The $25.00 filing fee was paid and plaintiff requested 
reimbursement of that cost along with his damage claim. 

{¶ 3} 3) Defendant denied liability and contended that plaintiff failed to offer 

any evidence to prove that DRC personnel acted negligently during the December 7, 

2009 shakedown search at PCI. Defendant maintained plaintiff’s property was not 

confiscated as contraband and suggested that plaintiff’s missing items may “have been 

misplaced, stolen, traded, or gambled away” by plaintiff. Defendant further asserted 

plaintiff did not produce any evidence to establish any of his property items were lost or 

stolen while under the control of PCI staff. 

{¶ 4} 4) Plaintiff filed a response arguing that he was not allowed to remain in 

his cell during the shakedown and that therefore, DRC staff assumed responsibility for 

his property at the time he was ordered to leave the area. Secondly, plaintiff contended 

that defendant failed to comply with the administrative rules for shakedown searches 

and grievance procedures. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

{¶ 5} 1) 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. 

{¶ 6} 2) 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. 

{¶ 7} 3) 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. 

{¶ 8} 4) 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. 

{¶ 9} 5) 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 issues, 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. 

{¶ 10} 6) Plaintiff cannot recover for property loss when he fails to produce 

sufficient evidence to establish defendant actually assumed control over the property. 

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

overruled, 2005-Ohio-5068. 

{¶ 11} 7) The credibility of witnesses and the weight attributable to their 

testimony are primarily matters for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St. 

2d 230, 39 O.O. 2d 366, 227 N.E. 2d 212, paragraph one of the syllabus. The court is 

free to believe or disbelieve, all or any part of each witness’s testimony. State v. Antill

(1964), 176 Ohio St. 61, 26 O.O. 2d 366, 197 N.E. 2d 548. In the instant action, the 

trier of fact finds that the statements of plaintiff are not particularly persuasive. 

{¶ 12} 8) 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. 

{¶ 13} 9) In addition, prison regulations, including those contained in the Ohio 

Administrative Code, "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-Ohio-139, 683 N.E. 2d 1139, citing Sandin v. 

Conner (1995), 515 U.S. 472, 481-482, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418. 

Additionally, this court has held that "even if defendant had violated the Ohio 

Administrative Code, no cause of action would exist in this court. A breach of internal 

regulations in itself does not constitute negligence." Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. 

and Corr. (1993), 67 Ohio Misc. 2d 1, 3, 643 N.E. 2d 1182. Accordingly, to the extent 

that plaintiff alleges that DRC somehow violated internal prison regulations and the Ohio 

Administrative Code, he fails to state a claim for relief. See Sharp v. Dep't of Rehab. & 

Corr., Ct. of Cl. No. 2008-02410-AD, 2008-Ohio-7064, ¶5. 

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

he sustained any loss as a result of any negligence on the part of defendant. Fitzgerald 

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

LEE A. ALDERSON 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-09451-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 defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. 

 

 ________________________________ 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 

Entry cc: 

Lee Alderson, #558-101 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel 

P.O. Box 209 Department of Rehabilitation 

11781 St. Rt. 762 and Correction 

Orient, Ohio 43146 770 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43222 

SJM/laa 

3/18 
Filed 3/25/11 

Sent to S.C. reporter 6/9/11