[Cite as Craft v. Madison Corr. Inst., 2011-Ohio-6958.]

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

THOMAS E. CRAFT 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

MADISON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2011-07109-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT 

{¶1} On February 25, 2011, plaintiff, Thomas Craft, an inmate incarcerated at 

defendant, Madison Correctional Institution (MaCI), was transferred from the general 

population to a segregation unit. Plaintiff alleged that before he was taken from his 

housing unit, he witnessed two unidentified inmates lock the door to his cell. After he 

was released from segregation, plaintiff realized that several of his property items were 

stolen. Plaintiff related the stolen property included: one pair Nike shoes, three athletic 

shirts, four pair of underwear, two t-shirts, two pair of crew socks, two pair of deluxe 

Quater socks, toe nail clippers, Muslim oil, one baseball jersey, a clipper guard, a blue 

muscle shirt, one toothpaste, one pair of boot strings, two “Penthouse” magazines, two 

towels, two wash cloths and five personal letters. Plaintiff also contended that “a few 

months before” a corrections officer confiscated a lamp, a pair of AA batteries, and 

plaintiff’s CD player which had been located in another inmate’s cell. Plaintiff 

maintained that the confiscated property was lost or destroyed and that defendant failed 

to follow the relevant administrative rules which allow him to mail the confiscated 

property home. 

{¶2} Plaintiff implied his property was stolen as a proximate result of 
negligence on the part of MaCI staff in failing to adequately protect the property from 

theft attempts. Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $283.54, the stated 

replacement cost of his alleged stolen property and reimbursement of the filing fee. The 

$25.00 filing fee was paid. 

{¶3} Defendant denied liability in this matter contending plaintiff failed to offer 

any evidence to prove his property was stolen as a proximate result of any negligent 

conduct on the part of defendant. Defendant stated that at the time he was placed in 

segregation, plaintiff already possessed the “maximum number of some of the items for 

which he now seeks compensation.” Defendant denied exercising control over any of 

the “remaining items of property identified in Plaintiff’s complaint.” Defendant argued 

no evidence has been offered to establish plaintiff suffered property loss as a result of 

any act attributable to MaCI personnel. Defendant advised MaCI staff searched for 

plaintiff's property but did “not locate the property or any evidence of theft.” 

{¶4} Defendant submitted a report from the institutional inspector, Jondrea 

Parrish, who explained that after plaintiff was removed from the unit, a “property 

inventory record was completed and demonstrates the inmate had the maximum 

number of socks, undershirts, and underwear allowed (7 each). Additionally, the inmate 

is permitted 1 pair of gym shoes and a pair of New Balance was indicated on the 

property record. Inmate Craft signed the property inventory record on 3/11/11, 

indicating all his personal property listed had been returned to him and he was offered 

an opportunity to inspect it before leaving the vault.” 

{¶5} In addition, Parrish noted that “[t]here is no mention of towels, wash 

cloths, CD player, lamp, batteries, letters, socks, underwear, baseball jersey, or muscle 

shirt in the theft/loss reports he filed with MaCI staff.” Parrish concluded that plaintiff 

“has demonstrated inconsistency in his report of what items were allegedly lost or 

stolen.” 

{¶6} Plaintiff filed a response wherein he reiterated that his cell door had been 

closed by other inmates. In addition, plaintiff insisted that the vault officer would not 

allow him to inspect his property prior to signing the inventory sheet. Plaintiff submitted 

copies of property inventory records dated October 25, 2010, and February 22, 2011, 

and receipts from a vendor dated November 30, 2010. Plaintiff maintained that such 

records verified that he was in possession of the alleged missing items at the time he 
was transferred from his housing unit. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

{¶7} 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. 

{¶8} 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} 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} Plaintiff must produce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for the 

conclusion 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. 

{¶11} Plaintiff's failure to prove delivery of the claimed missing 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. 

{¶12} 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. 

{¶13} 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. 

{¶14} “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; 

{¶15} The allegation that a theft may have occurred is insufficient to show 

defendant's negligence. Williams v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1985), 83-

07091-AD; Custom v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1985), 84-02425. Plaintiff 

must show defendant breached a duty or ordinary or reasonable care. Williams. 

{¶16} Defendant is not responsible for thefts 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. 

{¶17} The fact defendant supplied plaintiff with a locker box to secure valuables 

constitutes prima facie evidence of defendant discharging its duty of reasonable care. 

Watson v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1987), 86-02635-AD. 

{¶18} Generally, defendant has a duty to conduct a search for plaintiff's property 

within a reasonable time after being notified of the theft. Phillips v. Columbus 

Correctional Facility (1981), 79-0132-AD; Russell v. Warren Correctional Inst. (1999), 

98-03305-AD. 

{¶19} However, a search is not always necessary. In Copeland v. Department of 

Rehabilitation and Correction (1985), 85-03638-AD, the court held that defendant had 

no duty to search for missing property if the nature of the property is such that it is 

indistinguishable and cannot be traced to plaintiff. In the instant case, the claimed 

stolen property was indistinguishable and, therefore, no duty to search arose. Wallace 

v. Grafton Corr. Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2009-01743, 2009-Ohio-5741. 

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

defendant was negligent in respect to making any attempts to recover indistinguishable 

stolen property. See Williams v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Ct. of Cl. No. 2005-11094-AD, 

2006-Ohio-7207. 

{¶21} 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. The court does not find plaintiff’s 

assertions particularly persuasive in reference to the alleged confiscation of a lamp, 

batteries, and a CD player, and plaintiff’s allegations regarding the theft of his property 
after he was placed in segregation also lack credibility. 

{¶22} Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, any of 

his property was stolen or unrecovered as a proximate result of any negligent conduct 

attributable to defendant. Fitzgerald v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 

(1998), 97-10146-AD; Hall v. London Correctional Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2008-04803-AD, 

2008-Ohio-7088. 

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 

THOMAS R. CRAFT 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

MADISON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2011-07109-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: 

Thomas R. Craft, #A468-182 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel 

P.O. Box 740 Department of Rehabilitation 

London, Ohio 43140 and Correction 

 770 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43222 

9/6 

Filed 9/13/11 

Sent to S.C. reporter 1/27/12