[Cite as Hughley v. Southeastern Corr. Inst., 2011-Ohio-5332.]

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

KEVIN HUGHLEY 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

SOUTHEASTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

 Defendant Case No. 2010-12036 

Judge Clark B. Weaver Sr. 

ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

{¶1} On January 20, 2011, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment 

pursuant to Civ.R. 56(B). On January 26, 2011, plaintiff filed a response and a crossmotion for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56(A). On January 28, 2011, plaintiff 

filed a second response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. On February 2, 

2011, defendant filed a response to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. On March 

23, 2011, a non-oral hearing was held on the cross-motions for summary judgment 

pursuant to L.C.C.R. 4(D).1

{¶2} As an initial matter, on March 24, 2011, plaintiff filed a “motion to amend 

summary judgment request via granted amendment of complaint.” On March 29, 2011, 

defendant filed a motion to strike plaintiff’s March 24, 2011 motion. On April 4, 2011, 

plaintiff filed a response. A review of plaintiff’s amended complaint does not reveal any 

new operative facts or additional claims for relief that would justify an amendment to 

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to amend is 

DENIED and defendant’s motion to strike is GRANTED. 

{¶3} Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows: 
Case No. 2010-12036 - 2 - ENTRY

{¶4} “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. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317. 

{¶5} Plaintiff was formerly an inmate in the custody and control of defendant 

pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. Plaintiff alleges that defendant was without legal authority to 

confine him inasmuch as convictions of misdemeanor offenses must be served in jail 

rather than prison pursuant to R.C. 2929.26(D). 

{¶6} “False imprisonment occurs when a person confines another intentionally 

‘without lawful privilege and against his consent within a limited area for any appreciable 

time * * *.’” Bennett v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 107, 109, 

quoting Feliciano v. Kreiger (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 69, 71. The elements of a false 

imprisonment claim are: 1) expiration of the lawful term of confinement; 2) intentional 

confinement after the expiration; and 3) knowledge that the privilege initially justifying 

the confinement no longer exists. Corder v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1994), 94 

Ohio App.3d 315, 318. 

{¶7} In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant filed the affidavit 

of Melissa Adams, who states: 

 1

Plaintiff’s March 9, 2011 “motion to rule on plaintiff’s February 2, 2011 filing to amend complaint with 

request to change summary judgment hearing to oral hearing” is DENIED as moot. 
Case No. 2010-12036 - 3 - ENTRY

{¶8} “1. I am the Chief of the Bureau of Sentence Computation (BOSC) of the 

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“DRC”) and have held this position 

for one year. My job duties include but are not limited to direct responsibility for the 

BOSC, direct supervision of 45 staff members, review of sentence computations to 

ensure accuracy and compliance with Ohio law, monitor, review and enforce BOSC 

policies, develop procedures relevant to inmate records, and oversee the training for 

BOSC staff. 

{¶9} “2. I have personal knowledge and I am competent to testify to the facts 

contained in this Affidavit. 

{¶10} “* * * 

{¶11} “7. BOSC questioned the order to serve misdemeanor charges in 

prison and contacted the court Bailiff Halle for clarification. * * * 

{¶12} “8. BOSC calculated the terms of Plaintiff’s sentences and determined 

the date for the expiration of his sentences based upon the court’s sentencing orders 

and the information pertaining to the amount of jail time credit that BOSC received.” 

{¶13} In opposition to defendant’s motion and in support of his motion, 

plaintiff has attached numerous exhibits; however, none of the exhibits are properly 

authenticated nor has plaintiff provided the court with an affidavit in support of his 

motion. 

{¶14} “[A]n action for false imprisonment cannot be maintained when the 

imprisonment is in accordance with the judgment or order of a court, unless it appears 

such judgment or order is void on its face.” Bradley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 

Franklin App. No. 07AP-506, 2007-Ohio-7150, ¶10; Fryerson v. Dept. of Rehab. & 

Corr., Franklin App. No. 02AP-1216, 2003-Ohio-2730, ¶17; Diehl v. Friester (1882), 37 

Ohio St. 473, 475. Thus, the state is immune from a common law claim of false 

imprisonment when the plaintiff was incarcerated pursuant to a facially-valid judgment 

or order, even if the facially-valid judgment or order is later determined to be void. 

Bradley, supra, at ¶11; Likes v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Franklin App. No. 05AP-
Case No. 2010-12036 - 4 - ENTRY

709, 2006-Ohio-231, ¶10. Facial invalidity does not require the consideration of 

extrinsic information or the application of case law. Gonzales v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & 

Corr., Franklin App. No. 08AP-567, 2009-Ohio-246, ¶10. 

{¶15} Plaintiff did not file an affidavit or any other admissible evidence either 

in support of his own motion for summary judgment or in opposition to defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment. Based upon the undisputed affidavit of Melissa Adams, 

the court finds that defendant at all times confined plaintiff pursuant to a valid court 

order.2 The law does not require defendant to question a facially valid order of the 

sentencing court. McKinney v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Franklin App. No. 09AP960, 2010-Ohio-2323. The burden is upon plaintiff to challenge his conviction and 

sentence in the appropriate court. 

{¶16} Moreover, even if defendant had a duty to question the validity of the 

sentencing entry in this instance, defendant did contact the sentencing court regarding 

plaintiff’s sentence. Finally, there is also no question that plaintiff served only the term 

of confinement set forth in the sentencing entry, less jail time credit, and that he was 

released at the expiration of that term. 

{¶17} In short, the only reasonable conclusion to draw from the undisputed 

evidence is that plaintiff was not falsely imprisoned by defendant. Accordingly, plaintiff’s 

motion for summary judgment is DENIED and defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment is GRANTED. Judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. 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. 

 _____________________________________ 

 

2

The court notes that defendant’s answer does not include res judicata as an affirmative defense. See 

Hughley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Franklin App. No. 09AP-562, 2010-Ohio-1768, ¶9 (“We note, 

however, that the sentencing entries forming the basis of appellant’s claims have already been 

determined to be valid. See State v. Hughley, 8th Dist. No. 92588, 2009-Ohio-5824, ¶22, discretionary 

appeal not allowed by 124 Ohio St.3d 1477, 2010-Ohio-354 * * *.”) 
Case No. 2010-12036 - 5 - ENTRY

 CLARK B. WEAVER SR. 

 Judge 

cc: 

 

Amy S. Brown 

Stephanie D. Pestello-Sharf 

Assistant Attorney General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

Kevin Hughley 

16410 Scottsdale 

Shaker Heights, Ohio 44120 

GWP/dms

Filed September 12, 2011 

To S.C. reporter October 13, 2011