[Cite as Reid v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2011-Ohio-1859.]

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

MAURICE REID 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-12265-AD 

Judge Alan C. Travis 

Magistrate Matthew C. Rambo 

DECISION

{¶ 1} On February 28, 2011, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s 

amended complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and (6), and pursuant to Civ.R. 41(B)(1) 

because it does not comply with the court’s January 18, 2011 order. On March 16, 

2011, plaintiff filed a response. 

{¶ 2} “The standard of review for a dismissal pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1) is 

whether any cause of action cognizable by the forum has been raised in the complaint.” 

State ex rel. Bush v. Spurlock (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 77, 80. In construing a motion to 

dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), the court must presume that all factual allegations 

of the complaint are true and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving 

party. Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 190. Then, before the court 

may dismiss the complaint, it must appear beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set 

of facts entitling him to recovery. O’Brien v. University Community Tenants Union 

(1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 242. 
{¶ 3} Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody and control of defendant at the 

Mansfield Correctional Institution (ManCI) pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. In his amended 

complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant retaliated against him by forcing him to 

frequently change cells; that “$135 of his property” was stolen while it was in 

defendant’s possession; that Corrections Lieutenant Page authored a false conduct 

report against him; and that Corrections Lieutenant Menard has told other inmates that 

he is an “old ass snitch, wanna-be attorney.” 

{¶ 4} Defendant argues that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over 

plaintiff’s claims of retaliation, that it is entitled to discretionary immunity for decisions to 

move plaintiff between cells, that plaintiff cannot recover for the loss of contraband, and 

that plaintiff did not comply with the court’s January 18, 2011 order to specify the 

alleged defamatory statements, when they were made, and to whom they were 

published. 

{¶ 5} With respect to plaintiff’s retaliation claim, such a claim is treated as 

arising under 42 U.S.C. 1983. State ex rel. Carter v. Schotten, 70 Ohio St.3d 89, 91, 

1994-Ohio-37. It is well-settled that such claims are not actionable in the Court of 

Claims. See Thompson v. Southern State Community College (June 15, 1989), 

Franklin App. No. 89AP-114; Burkey v. Southern Ohio Corr. Facility (1988), 38 Ohio 

App.3d 170. 

{¶ 6} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “[t]he language in R.C. 2743.02 

that ‘the state’ shall ‘have its liability determined * * * in accordance with the same rules 

of law applicable to suits between private parties * * *’ means that the state cannot be 

sued for its legislative or judicial functions or the exercise of an executive or planning 

function involving the making of a basic policy decision which is characterized by the 

exercise of a high degree of official judgment or discretion.” Reynolds v. State (1984), 

14 Ohio St.3d 68, 70; Von Hoene v. State (1985), 20 Ohio App.3d 363, 364. Prison 

administrators are provided “wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of 

policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and 

discipline and to maintain institutional security.” Bell v. Wolfish (1979), 441 U.S. 520, 

547. 
{¶ 7} Defendant’s decisions with respect to plaintiff’s cell assignment are 

characterized by a high degree of official judgment or discretion. Accordingly, 

defendant is entitled to discretionary immunity from suits arising out of such decisions 

as a matter of law. 

{¶ 8} Plaintiff’s claim of harassment sounds in intentional infliction of emotional 

distress. In order to sustain such a claim, plaintiff must show that: “(1) defendant 

intended to cause emotional distress, or knew or should have known that actions taken 

would result in serious emotional distress; (2) defendant’s conduct was extreme and 

outrageous; (3) defendant’s actions proximately caused plaintiff’s psychic injury; and (4) 

the mental anguish plaintiff suffered was serious.” Hanly v. Riverside Methodist Hosp.

(1991), 78 Ohio App.3d 73, 82, citing Pyle v. Pyle (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 31, 34. 

{¶ 9} To constitute conduct sufficient to give rise to a claim of intentional 

infliction of emotional distress, the conduct must be “so outrageous in character, and so 

extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded 

as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Yeager v. Local Union 20, 

Teamsters (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 369, 375, quoting 1 Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts 

(1965) 73, Section 46, Comment d. 

{¶ 10} “It has not been enough that the defendant has acted with an intent which 

is tortious or even criminal, or that he has intended to inflict emotional distress, or even 

that his conduct has been characterized by ‘malice,’ or a degree of aggravation which 

would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. * * * Generally, the case 

is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would 

arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, ‘Outrageous!’ The 

liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty 

oppressions, or other trivialities.” Id. at 374-375. 

{¶ 11} Upon review, the court finds that plaintiff’s allegation that Menard referred 

to him as an “old ass snitch, wanna-be attorney” cannot be reasonably construed as 

extreme and outrageous for purposes of recovering on a claim for intentional infliction of 

emotional distress. 

{¶ 12} With respect to plaintiff’s property claim, while it is true that plaintiff cannot 

pursue a claim for property that he has no right to possess, plaintiff states in his 
complaint that he had “$135.00 of his property stolen.” It is unclear whether plaintiff is 

referring to $135 in cash, which is considered contraband, or other personal property 

worth $135. 

{¶ 13} Regarding plaintiff’s allegation that Page authored a false conduct report 

against him, the court finds that plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to be in 

compliance with the court’s January 18, 2011 order. Specifically, plaintiff did not identify 

either the date on which the report was authored or to whom it was directed and he did 

not specify when it was published. 

{¶ 14} Based upon the foregoing, defendant’s motion shall be granted to the 

extent that plaintiff’s retaliation claim, harassment claim, and claim based upon 

defendant’s decision with respect to his cell assignments shall be dismissed. Plaintiff’s 

defamation claim shall be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Civ.R. 41(B)(1) for 

failure to follow the court’s orders. 

{¶ 15} Plaintiff’s only remaining claim is based upon the loss of “$135 of his 

property.” R.C. 2743.10 provides, in part, that “[c]ivil actions against the state for two 

thousand five hundred dollars or less shall be determined administratively by the clerk 

of the court of claims * * *.” Inasmuch as plaintiff’s claim is for $135, it shall be 

transferred to the administrative docket where it shall be processed pursuant to R.C. 

2743.10(A). 

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 

MAURICE REID 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 
 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-12265-AD 

Judge Alan C. Travis 

Magistrate Matthew C. Rambo 

ENTRY OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND TRANSFERRING CASE TO 

ADMINISTRATIVE DOCKET

 For the reasons set forth in the decision filed concurrently herewith, defendant’s 

motion to dismiss is GRANTED to the extent that plaintiff’s retaliation claim, harassment 

claim, and claim based upon defendant’s decision with respect to his cell assignments 

are DISMISSED. Plaintiff’s defamation claim is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant 

to Civ.R. 41(B)(1) for failure to follow the court’s order. 

 Inasmuch as plaintiff’s remaining property claim is for $135, it is hereby 

TRANSFERRED to the administrative docket where it shall be processed pursuant to 

R.C. 2743.10(A). 

 _____________________________________ 

 ALAN C. TRAVIS 

 Judge 

cc: 

 

Amy S. Brown 

Assistant Attorney General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

Maurice Reid, #538-099 

P.O. Box 788 

1150 North Main Street 

Mansfield, Ohio 44901 

MR/cmd

Filed March 31, 2011/To S.C. reporter April 12, 2011