[Cite as Szymczyk v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2011-Ohio-6573.]

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

MATTHEW R. SZYMCZYK 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2011-04151-AD 

Acting Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT 

{¶ 1} Plaintiff, Matthew Szymczyk, an inmate formerly incarcerated at 

defendant, Mansfield Correctional Institution (ManCI), filed this complaint maintaining 

that ManCI personnel honored a forged $100.00 cash withdrawal slip and consequently 

withdrew that amount from his inmate account. Plaintiff related that “my old cell mate 

forged a cash slip in my name for $100.00.” According to plaintiff, the forgery occurred 

ten days after plaintiff was sent to segregation for a rules violation. Plaintiff denied 

signing the forged instrument. 

{¶ 2} Consequently, plaintiff filed this action contending that he suffered 

damages as a result of defendant’s act in honoring a forged instrument. Plaintiff filed 

this complaint seeking to recover $600.00, representing $100.00 for the amount 

improperly withdrawn and not replaced in his inmate trust account and $500.00 for 

emotional distress.1

 Plaintiff submitted the $25.00 filing fee. 

 1 Initially, it should be noted that this court does not recognize entitlement to damages for mental 

distress and extraordinary damages for simple negligence involving property loss. Galloway v. 
{¶ 3} Plaintiff submitted a copy of the forged withdrawal slip dated October 11, 

2010. Under the signature line on the slip appears plaintiff’s name in cursive writing. 

The slip also carries a witness line designated for the signature of an ManCI employee. 

The signature appearing on the witness line is illegible. The trier of fact finds that the 

inmate’s signature does not resemble the signature submitted with plaintiff’s complaint. 

{¶ 4} Defendant acknowledged that “[t]here is evidence that supports the cash 

slip was signed when Plaintiff was no longer at the prison facility.” 

{¶ 5} Defendant denied any liability in this matter arguing that “[p]laintiff is 

unable to demonstrate that the duty of care was breached, that there was a loss, and 

that the loss was proximately caused by Defendant’s negligence.” Defendant 

suggested that plaintiff acquiesced to the forgery and that plaintiff lacked credibility. 

{¶ 6} Plaintiff filed a response contending that defendant breached its duty to 

make reasonable attempts to protect inmate property and to recover such property. 

Furthermore, plaintiff contended that defendant should bear liability based on its failure 

to provide adequate safeguards to protect inmate accounts from being preyed upon by 

forgers. Plaintiff essentially argued that defendant failed to follow its own internal rules 

and that defendant delayed in responding to plaintiff’s complaint regarding the forgery. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

{¶ 7} The mere fact a theft occurred is insufficient to show defendant’s 

negligence. Williams v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1985), 83-07091-AD; 

Custom v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1986), 84-02425. Plaintiff must show 

that defendant breached a duty of ordinary or reasonable care. Williams. 

{¶ 8} Defendant is not responsible for actions of other 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. 

{¶ 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. 

 

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1979), 78-0731-AD; Berke v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Welfare

(1976), 52 Ohio App. 2d 271, 6 O.O. 3d 280, 369 N.E. 2d 1056. Consequently, the court shall address 
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 MaCI staff 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. 

{¶ 10} 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. 

{¶ 11} 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. 

{¶ 12} 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. 

{¶ 13} 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. In the instant claim, evidence supports 

the conclusion that defendant made no attempt to protect or recover the funds from 

plaintiff’s account. 

{¶ 14} Defendant may bear liability for failure to properly monitor an inmate 

plaintiff’s account by either failing to record deposits or in making unauthorized 

withdrawals. See Nelms v. Southeastern Corr. Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2007-01401-AD, 

2007-Ohio-7087; Lonero v. Lebanon Corr. Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2009-01719-AD, 2009-

Ohio-6359. Plaintiff, in the instant action, has submitted sufficient evidence to prove 

that defendant acted improperly in handling the funds in his inmate account. 

{¶ 15} Plaintiff has proven that he suffered damages in the amount of $100.00, 

plus the $25.00 filing fee which may be reimbursed as compensable costs pursuant to 

 

plaintiff’s claim based on the standard measure of damages for property loss. 
R.C. 2335.19. See Bailey v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1990), 

62 Ohio Misc. 2d 19, 587 N.E. 2d 990. 

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 

MATTHEW R. SZYMCZYK 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2011-04151-AD 

Acting 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 plaintiff in the amount of $125.00, which includes the filing fee. Court costs are 

assessed against defendant. 

 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Acting Clerk 

Entry cc: 

Matthew R. Szymczyk, #454-369 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel 

P.O. Box 45699 Department of Rehabilitation 

Lucasville, Ohio 45699 and Correction 

 770 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43222 

7/25 

Filed 8/3/11 

Sent to S.C. reporter 12/20/11